wmmmm&BBBBtt 


^J>- 


2 

<2 


>* 


Rational  Religion. 


—  BY  — 

EEV.  JOHN  CONWAY, 

Editor  op  "North-Western  Chronicle,1'  St.  Paul,  Minn. 


While  reason  drew  the  plan,  the  heart  inform'd 
The  moral  page,  and  fancy  lent  it  grace." 

Thomson— Liberty,  Part  IV. 


MILWAUKEE: 

HOFFMANN  BROTHERS, 

Printhrs  to  the  Holt  Apostolic  See. 

1890. 


$&  7  & 


COFYKIGHTED,  1889. 

BY  HOFFMANN  BROTHERS, 

MlLWAUKKB,   Wl8. 


LOAN  STACK 


$T  HOI 

Gib 
fit) 


PREFATORY    NOTE. 


H^HE  fact  that  this  book  is  intended  for  Catholic  readers, 
■"■  is  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be  useful  for  non-Cath- 
olics. I  sincerely  hope  that  our  separated  brethren,  as  well  as 
those  who  are  of  the  household  of  the  Faith,  may  derive 
some  good  from  it.  I  have  endeavored  to  put  into  what 
we  may  call  foundation  chapters  —  "  The  Existence  of  God," 
"  The  Divinity  of  Christ,"  "  Miracles,"  etc.— a  little  more  argu- 
ment and  information  than  are  commonly  found  in  pop- 
ular books  on  such  subjects.  My  object  is  not  to  convince 
Catholics,  but  to  give  them  ready  reasons  for  their  faith  in 
these  subjects  now-a-days  so  much  talked  of.  I  will  not 
state  as  an  excuse  for  defects,  that  the  book  has  been  writ- 
ten during  the  leisure  hours  of  a  busy  year.  If  it  is  worth 
reading,  then  it  should  be  read.  If  it  does  not  repay  peru- 
sal, then,  no  matter  under  what  circumstances  it  has  been 
written,  its  place  should  be  with  the  many  furniture  books 
that  afflict  humanity. 

I  take  this  opportunity  of  thanking  the  Rev.  P.  R.  IIef- 
fron,  D.  D.,  Pastor  of  the  Cathedral,  St.  Paul,  for  his  many 
valuable  suggestions,  and  for  his  kindness  in  reading  my 

manuscript. 

JOHN  CONWAY. 

The  Cathedra i., 

St.  Paul, 

Minn. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS, 


CHAPTER    I.  Pag*. 

God ...       9 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Trinity 20 

CHAPTER  III. 
The  Divinity  of  Christ , 28 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Miracles 37 

CHAPTER  Y. 
Faith  and  Reason 48 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Faith  and  Physics 55 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Faith  and  Evolution 66 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
The  Church  and  the  Bible 76 

CHAPTER  IX. 

The  Meaning  of  "  Out  of  the  Church  no  Salva- 
tion "  87 

vii 


Vlll  TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER    X.  Page. 

Indulgences . 97 

CHAPTER   XI. 
Theology  of  the  Devotion  to  the  Sacred  Heart.    109 

CHAPTER  XII. 
Veneration  of  the  Blessed  Virgin 116 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
The  Immaculate  Conception 124 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
Mixed  Marriages 133 

CHAPTER  XV. 
Divorce 144 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Is  There  a  Life  Beyond  the  Grave  ? 154 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
Reading  .  163 


RATIONAL  RELIGION, 


CHAPTER  I. 

GOD. 


RENAN  says,  the  totality  of  human  experience  may 
be  taken  as  the  foundation  of  a  reasonable  creed. 
The  sum  of  this  experience  tells  us  that  man  believes 
in  an  Infinite  something ;  that  he  believes  in  offering 
personal  devotion  to  this  Infinite  something  ;  that  the 
Infinite  in  some  way  reveals  Itself ;  that  men  believe 
in  a  self-conscious  individuality  which  survives  their 
bodies  ;  that  any  violation  of  the  internal  sense  of  right 
and  wrong  must,  sometime  or  other,  be  visited  by 
unhappy  consequences.  The  first  revealed  name  of 
this  Infinite  something  in  the  Scripture  is  Elohim. 
It  is  called  Jehovah  by  the  Israelites.  We  say  God. 
The  great  question  with  which  St.  Thomas  puzzled  his 
teachers  at  Monte  Cassino  is,  What  is  God?  Poetic 
prose-writers  may  declare  God  to  be  a  being  of  infinite 
beauty  and  perfection,  which  human  tongue  can  not 
express,  nor  angelic  nature  comprehend,  and  yet  leave 
us  as  much  in  the  dark  as  ever.  As  the  absence  of 
definition  is  a  frequent  cause  of  misunderstanding,  we 
give  one  which,  for  our  present  inquiry,  all  educated 
people,  whether  believers  or  unbelievers,  will  accept. 


10  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

By  God  we  mean  a  spirit  infinitely  perfect,  the  Creator 
of  heaven  and  earth,  and  all  things.  The  existence  of 
God  is  a  preamble  of  faith.  It  is  also  an  article  of 
faith,  for  in  the  Apostles'  and  in  the  Nicene  Creed  we 
say,  "  I  believe  in  God."  The  Vatican  Council  teaches 
that  we  can  get  a  sure  knowledge  of  God  by  the  natural 
light  of  reason  and  from  the  consideration  of  created 
things.  Reason  must  not  be  undervalued,  for,  after  all, 
it  is  the  only  faculty  we  possess  to  judge  of  anything, 
even  of  revelation.  God  is  not  comprehended,  nor  is 
He  comprehensible ;  but  God  is  knowable  and  known. 
Everything  that  is  knowable  is  not  comprehensible. 
We  comprehend  that  which  the  mind  fully  grasps  ;  for 
example,  that  two  and  two  make  four,  that  parallel 
lines  never  meet,  that  contradictories  can  not  be  at  the 
same  time  true.  We  know  of  the  existence  of  matter; 
its  essence  we  can  not  comprehend.  We  may  analyze 
water  and  reduce  it  to  its  component  parts  of  oxygen, 
hydrogen,  carbon,  and  nitrogen;  as  to  its  essence,  we 
are  just  as  much  as  ever  in  the  dark.  We  can  not 
account  for  the  globular  form  of  the  trembling  rain- 
drop which  the  passing  storm  has  suspended  from  the 
eaves  of  our  houses  ;  we  know  that  the  sun  and  earth 
and  millions  of  other  planets  are  suspended  in  a  most 
subtle  medium  :  what  holds  them  there  we  may  call 
by  scientific  names,  but  we  may  as  well  candidly  admit 
that  it  is  a  mystery  as  profound  as  the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus.  The  fact  is,  incomprehensibility  is  not  a 
motive  for  rejecting  belief,  either  in  the  natural  or  in  the 
supernatural.  With  the  requisite  machinery,  the  earth 
can  be  compressed  into  the  size  of  a  cannon-ball,  the 
ocean  can  be  emptied,  the  steamship  "Alaska ''  can  be 
floated  on  a  glass  of  water,  but  a  full  idea  of  God  can 


GOD.  11 

not  be  put  into  the  human  mind  ;  for  the  limited  can 
not  grasp  the  infinite.  All  who  do  not  recognize  the 
existence  of  God  may  be  classed  under  the  general 
head  of  Atheists.  Besides  those — if  such  there  are — 
who  never  heard  or  thought  of  a  Supreme  Being,  and 
those  who,  having  heard  of  Him,  yet  refuse  to  believe 
in  His  existence,  there  are  many  others  who  live  as 
though  there  were  no  God,  grievously  setting  His  laws 
at  defiance — Theists  in  theory,  Atheists  in  practice. 
The  modern  fashionable  form  of  Atheism  is  called 
among  English-speaking  peoples  Agnosticism.  There 
may  be,  or  there  may  not  be,  a  God,  the  professors  of 
this  form  of  unbelief  tell  us,  but,  they  continue,  we  have 
no  proof  that  there  is.  An  Agnostic  is  literally  a  know- 
nothing,  and  it  is  a  strange  irony  of  history  that  whilst 
modern  unbelievers  are  called  Agnostics,  the  great 
opponents  of  faith  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  and 
the  whole  of  the  third  century  were  called  Gnostics. 

The  two  great  causes  of  Atheism  are  intellectual 
abuse  and  mental  depravity.  The  existence  of  God 
can  not  be  proved  by  algebraical  formulas,  and  some 
are  so  intellectually  cramped  that  they  can  not  appre- 
ciate any  other  kind  of  argument.  Bacon  truly  says  that 
tiny  sips  of  philosophy  lead  to  Atheism,  but  its  more 
generous  draughts  bring  back  to  religion.  The  wish  is 
father  to  the  thought.  Some  men  dislike  the  duties, 
the  sacrifices  and  the  restraints  imposed  by  God,  hence 
they  fain  would  reason  Him  out  of  existence.  As  the 
wish  not  to  believe  helps  largely  to  infidelity,  so  the 
wish  to  believe  is  a  great  aid  to  faith.  To  the  Christian, 
God  is  not  the  "  Unknowable  "  of  Herbert  Spencer,  nor 
the  "Universum  "  of  Strauss,  nor  the  "  Humanity  "  of 
Comte  and  Harrison,  nor  the  n  Immensities  "  of  Car- 


12  RATIONAL  RELIGION. 

lyle,  but  He  is  a  Being  of  surpassing  beauty  and  loveli- 
ness, of  bounteous  charity  and  even-handed  justice. 

Scientists  are  fond  of  invading  the  domain  of  the- 
ology, and  doing  the  unscientific  thing  of  applying  the 
principles  of  physical  science  to  the  problems  of  sacred 
knowledge.  Let  us  take  them  on  their  own  ground  for 
a  moment.  If  there  be  any  one  thing  about  which 
scientists  agree,  it  is  the  existence  of  motion.  We  know 
matter  by  its  properties,  and  motion  is  not  an  essential 
property  of  matter.  If  it  were,  then  all  matter,  and 
every  particle  of  it,  would  be  continuously  in  motion. 
Motion  exists.  The  thing  moved  must  have  a  mover. 
Whence  that  motion?  Not  from  itself,  for  nothing  can 
be,  under  the  same  aspect,  at  once  the  cause  and  the  sub- 
ject of  motion.  Even  intelligent  beings  can  not  be  the 
independent  cause  of  their  own  movements.  The  mind 
can  not  think  unless  some  object  has  been  presented  to 
it.  So  that  it  comes  to  this,  we  have  to  fall  back  on 
God  as  the  first  mover  of  the  universe.  Indeed,  the 
very  misery  which  Agnostics  or  know-nothings  have  to 
endure,  is  in  itself  an  argument  in  favor  of  Theism  ;  as 
witness  the  Hogarthian  series  of  maddening  pictures  of 
woe  unutterable  so  frequently  before  the  mind  of  that 
representative  of  his  class, — Langham,  of  "  Robert  Els- 
mere."  The  Christian  dogma,  "  I  believe  in  God  the 
Father  Almighty,"  is  more  reasonable  than  the  ration- 
alistic dogma,  "  I  believe  in  Nature  the  Mother  Al- 
mighty." The  very  origin  of  life  can  not  be  explained 
without  God.  Life  is  a  spontaneous,  or  internal  and 
uninterrupted  movement.  It  is  spontaneous,  for  it 
comes  from  an  internal  principle  of  action.  It  is 
uninterrupted,  because,  in  all  organic  things,  it  goes 
on  from  its  beginning  till   what   we  call  death.     It 


GOD.  13 

may  spring  from  matter  containing  a  vital  principle  ; 
it  can  not  spring  from  dead  matter,  for  dead  mat- 
ter, like  the  mineral  world  for  example,  having  no 
principle  of  life,  can  not  spring  into  action.  With 
the  shadow  of  death  immediately  succeeding  the 
glow  of  life,  its  universal  reign,  and  the  inherent  per- 
ishableness  of  all  things  before  us,  the  mind  can  look 
through  the  dim  past,  to  a  time  when  there  was  no  song 
of  a  wild  bird,  and  no  rustle  of  a  leaf,  and  no  fragrance 
of  a  flower,  and  looking  out  on  that  dreary  waste  of  a 
dead  world,  it  easily  draws  the  conclusion  :  life  must 
be  from  a  self-existing  and  necessary  Being — God. 
Something  exists.  The  idealist  Berkeley,  who  said 
things  exist  only  because  we  think  they  exist,  has  few 
followers  nowadays ;  and  if  anyone  still  doubts  real 
existence,  he  has  only  to  wait  a  few  hours  till  he  grows 
hungry  or  thirsty,  or  let  him  go  out  in  a  snow-storm, 
and  his  idealism  will  soon  vanish  before  the  stern 
reality  of  things.  Whatever  exists,  then,  is  either 
necessary  and  eternal,  or  is  dependent  and  created.  If 
the  former,  it  is  God  ;  if  the  latter,  it  leads  up  to  God. 
I  say  it  leads  up  to  God,  because  the  dependent  and 
created  is  neither  possible  nor  intelligible  without  the 
eternal.  We  can  not  conceive  a  thing  to  be  and  not  to 
be  at  the  same  time ;  we  can  not  form  an  idea  of  a 
square  circle  or  of  a  thinking  stone  ;  equally  impossible 
is  it  for  the  mind  to  conjure  up  an  idea  of  a  thing  which 
is  perishable  and  self-subsisting.  To  deny  the  existence 
of  God  is  to  be  guilty  of  self-contradiction.  To  assert 
the  creation  of  things  from  nothing,  without  a  Being  of 
Infinite  Power,  is  to  say  what  is  unthinkable.  To  tell 
me  that  things  are  produced  in  an  infinite  series,  makes 
me  ask,  Whence  comes  the  first  link  in  the  chain  of  the 


14  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

series  ?  To  tell  me  that  the  world  accounts  for  its  own 
existence  without  a  Supreme  Being,  is  as  intelligible  as 
to  say  that  Brooklyn  Bridge  accounts  for  its  own  exist- 
ence without  a  builder.  Take  anything  you  please,  it 
is  the  effect  of  some  cause,  and  this  latter  of  some  other 
cause,  and  so  on  until  we  come  to  the  First  Cause — 
God.  Cardinal  Newman  sums  up  the  argument  in 
these  words  :  u  For  if  (to  suppose  what  is  absurd)  the 
maker  of  the  visible  world  was  himself  made  by  some 
other  maker,  and  that  maker  again  by  another,  you 
must  anyhow  come  at  last  to  a  first  Maker,  who  had  no 
other,  that  is,  who  had  no  beginning.  Else  you  will  be 
forced  to  say  that  the  world  was  not  made  at  all,  or 
made  itself,  and  itself  had  no  beginning,  which  is  more 
wonderful  still ;  for  it  is  much  easier  to  conceive  that  a 
spirit,  such  as  God  is,  existed  from  eternity,  than  that 
this  material  world  was  eternal.  Unless,  then,  we  are 
to  doubt  that  we  live  in  a  world  of  beings  at  all,  unless 
we  doubt  our  own  existence,  if  we  do  but  grant  that 
there  is  something  or  other  now  existing,  it  follows  at 
once  that  there  must  be  something  which  has  always 
existed,  and  never  had  a  beginning."  Suppose  we  go 
back  to  a  time  when  the  "first  womb  of  things  was 
pregnant  with  all  the  future,"  even  then  we  must  ask 
ourselves,  Is  the  plant  from  the  seed,  or  the  seed  from 
the  plant?  the  hen  from  the  egg,  or  the  egg  from  the 
hen  ?  Neither  the  first  seed  nor  the  first  egg  produced 
itself. 

Order  is  unity  in  variety.  The  universal  prevalence 
of  order  shows  the  world  to  have  been  framed  by  a 
Being  of  the  highest  knowledge  and  power.  There  are 
evidences  of  design  on  all  sides.  Its  marks  are  unmis- 
takable.    The  laws  which  govern  the  physical  world 


GOD.  15 

must  come  from  intelligence.  As  a  recent  writer 
points  out,  rudely-cut  stone  hatchets,  or  flint  arrow- 
heads, or  Swiss  lake-dwellings,  or  mounds  of  marine 
shells  on  the  shores  of  Denmark,  are  considered  to  be 
tokens  of  intelligent  action,  or  of  the  existence  of  pre- 
historic man.  The  same  line  of  reasoning,  applied  to 
the  physical  world,  leads  up  to  the  highest  intelligence 
— to  God  Himself.  Tell  me  not  that  science  has  dis- 
posed of  religion.  It  is  one  thing  to  know  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Author  of  religion ;  it  is  another  to  be  able 
to  tell  the  how  of  His  existence.  Suppose  we  found  a 
steam-engine,  or  a  watch,  or  any  other  piece  of  mechan- 
ism, in  the  heart  of  the  Dark  Continent,  or  in  dead  cold 
grasp  of  an  ice-bound  valley  of  Greenland,  or  in  an 
island  of  the  Indian  Ocean  where  we  have  no  record 
that  human  foot  ever  left  its  print  upon  the  sandy 
beach  or  human  voice  ever  broke  the  stillness  of  the 
air,  is  not  the  presence  of  one  or  other  of  these  things 
undeniable  proof  that  an  intelligent  being  had  reached 
these  places  ?  The  universe  is  a  much  more  compli- 
cated piece  of  machinery  than  any  that  man  can  make. 
The  sun  is  three  hundred  thousand  times  as  heavy  as 
the  earth,  yet  the  whole  solar  system  is  a  very  small 
part  of  the  vast  universe — a  drop  in  the  infinite  ocean  of 
space.  We  travel  with  the  earth  around  the  sun  at  a 
rate  greater  than  one  thousand  miles  per  minute,  and 
other  planets  travel  much  faster.  Notwithstanding  the 
vastness  of  the  universe,  and  the  marvelous  speed  of  its 
parts,  yet  its  motion  never  stops  and  its  machinery  is 
never  out  of  gear.  No  wonder  Voltaire  should  have 
said  : 

"  The  more  I  think,  the  greater  my  surprise, 
No  maker  formed  the  clock  that  moves  before  my  eyes." 


16  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

It  is  told  of  a  gambler  that,  one  day,  when  throwing 
dice  he  threw  the  highest  possible  number.  A  by- 
stander said,  it  is  possible  to  do  so  once  by  chance.  But 
the  dice-thrower  turned  up  the  highest  number  a  sec- 
ond, and  a  third,  and  a  fourth  time.  The  on-lookers  all 
declared  that  the  dice  were  loaded.  When  we  look  at 
the  wonderful  order  of  the  universe,  and  think  of  its 
regularly  recurring  cycles  of  almost  limitless  details, 
ever  keeping  their  places  in  spite  of  many  chances  of 
disturbance,  and  even  destruction,  we,  too,  may  say 
nature  is  loaded.  It  is  loaded,  for  there  is  a  God  behind 
it.  The  glorious  sun  which  gives  us  rosy-fingered 
morn,  time  repeating  its  perpetual  poem  of  the  year, 
violets  spreading  their  velvet  blossoms  to  the  day, 
spendthrift  roses  giving  their  perfume  to  the  air,  sea- 
sons coming  and  going,  rain  falling  in  pleasant  showers, 
light  hanging  its  seven-hued  banners  on  cataract  and 
cloud,  spring  with  deft  and  unseen  fingers  weaving  the 
tapestries  of  green,  autumn  reaping  the  wealth  of  leaf 
and  seed,  winter  etching  in  frost  the  pines  and  firs, 
wind  and  wave  changing  and  destroying,  the  starry 
heavens  looking  down  serenely  upon  us,  all  tell  us  of 
design  and  point  to  an  intelligent  maker  and  preserver. 
No  wonder  St.  Paul  taught  that  those  who  refuse 
to  believe  in  God  are  inexcusable.  "His  invisible 
things  from  the  creation  of  the  world,  are  clearly  seen, 
being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made.  His 
eternal  power  also  and  divinity ;  so  that  they  (i  e.,  the 
brethren  who  did  not  believe  in  the  true  God)  are 
inexcusable  "  (Rom.  i.  20). 

Society  and  conscience,  as  wrell  as  nature  and  intel- 
ligence, proclaim  a  Supreme  Being.  The  great  leaders 
of  intellectual  hosts  in  every  age  have  been  believers  in 


GOD.  17 

the  Christian  religion,  and  therefore  in  God.  There  is 
in  every  one  an  inextinguishable  craving  after  God. 
Belief  in  Him  is  deeply  rooted  in  man's  nature.  The 
conclusion  that  God  exists  is  in  man's  nature,  and  all 
the  reasoning  in  the  world  will  not  drive  it  out.  Go  to 
any  land  you  please,  to  the  people  cursed  with  Boetian 
dullness,  or  blessed  with  the  highest  mental  develop- 
ment ;  to  the  philosophical  Teuton,  or  the  theological 
Spaniard  ;  to  the  fair  Caucasian,  or  the  dark  Ethiopian  ; 
to  the  cold  mountains  of  arctic  clime,  or  to  the  swelter- 
ing valley  of  equatorial  temperature ;  to  the  rudest 
Indian  nation,  or  to  the  highest  product  of  white  civil- 
ization,— every  where  you  will  find  a  belief  in  a  Supreme 
Being,  perhaps  a  hazy  belief,  mingled  with  supersti- 
tions, perverted  even  to  demon-worship,  but  yet  a 
belief  in  a  Supreme  One.  In  ancient  Greece  he  was 
Zeus  ;  in  Rome,  Jupiter ;  in  India,  Brahma ;  in  Phoe- 
nicia, Baal ;  in  America,  amongst  our  aborigines,  the 
Great  Spirit.  Every  race  has  a  religion  of  some  kind, 
so  that  Professor  Tiele  calls  it  "  an  universal  phenome- 
non of  humanity." 

We  reason  from  conscience  up  to  God.  It  is  the 
connecting  link  between  the  creature  and  his  Creator. 
Certain  things  call  forth  in  us  approval  or  blame,  and  con- 
sequently we  say  they  are  right  or  wrong.  Conscience 
may  become  dull,  but  it  can  not  be  completely  stifled. 
As  a  sanction  of  what  we  call  right,  and  as  a  reproof 
of  what  we  call  wrong,  it  furnishes  materials  for  the 
apprehension  of  a  Divine  Judge.  If  a  man  commit 
some  immorality,  even  though  it  be  no  offense  against 
society,  even  though  there  be  no  visible  eyes  upon  him, 
yet  he  feels  a  certain  confusion  and  sense  of  guilt. 
Conscience  is  even  more  than  a  moral  sense  :  it  implies 


18  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

the  existence  of  a  living  object  towards  which  it  is 
directed.  The  image  of  a  lifeless  thing  in  the  mind 
does  not  arouse  the  affection  nor  excite  any  responsi- 
bility. The  fact  that  we  feel  this  responsibility  is  evi- 
dent that  there  is  One  to  Whom  we  are  responsible. 
As  we  have  remorse  after  having  wounded  the  feelings 
of  a  very  dear  friend,  or  possess  a  sunny  serenity  of 
mind  at  having  secured  the  approbation  of  one  whose 
opinion  we  highly  prize,  so  there  must  be  within  us  an 
image  of  one  in  whose  smile  we  find  pleasure,  in  whose 
frown,  pain.  The  law  engraved  on  our  hearts,  though 
it  may  be  blurred  over  by  false  teachings  and  the  sway 
of  passion,  unceasingly  proclaims  its  force  and  will  not 
be  silenced  by  any  pressure.  Why  is  it  there  is  no  rest 
for  the  wicked  ?  Why  does  he  flee  "when  no  one  pur- 
sues him  ?  It  is  because,  even  though  his  sin  be  un- 
known to  his  fellow-men,  yet  his  terrified  conscience 
gives  him  a  picture  of  a  Supreme  Judge — God. 

History  also  furnishes  its  share  of  evidence  to  the 
existence  of  a  Supreme  Being.  No  critic  of  any  note 
nowadays  questions  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospel 
narratives.  We  have  contemporary  records  of  Christ 
and  His  works,  written  either  by  eye-witnesses,  or  by 
those  who  were  in  immediate  communication  with 
them.  These  records,  now  admitted  by  all  criticism 
worthy  of  the  name,  tell  us  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  of  the  Passion,  all  of  which 
point  out  Christ's  belief  in  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  so 
that,  if  Jesus  Christ  preached  that  sermon,  made  those 
promises,  and  taught  that  prayer,  then  any  one  who  says 
we  know  nothing  of  God,  or  of  a  future  life,  or  of  an  un- 
seen world,  says  that  he  does  not  believe  Jesus  Christ. 
With  the  cumulative  evidence  of  the  voice  of  history, 


GOD.  19 

and  the  voice  of  conscience,  and  the  voice  of  all  peoples, 
and  the  clear  signs  of  intelligent  design  in  the  universe, 
and  the  existence  and  creation  of  all  things,  after  all, 
God  is  not  quite  so  unknowable  as  Herbert  Spencer 
would  have  us  believe.  The  invitation  of  the  Chief 
Magistrate  of  the  United  States,  asking  Christians  of  all 
denominations  to  give  thanks  on  the  centennial  day  of 
civil  government  of  America,  not  to  a  myth,  but  to  a 
God,  is  a  national  manifestation  of  the  belief  of  our 
people,  and  of  their  submission  to  the  will  of  the  God 
of  nations,  in  spite  of  the  shallow  sneers  of  an  Inger- 
soll. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE    TRINITY. 

CATHOLIC  doctrine  teaches  us  that  in  one  God  there 
are  three  persons  :  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  equal  yet  distinct,  each  all-powerful  because 
divine,  and  all  having  one  and  the  same  divine  essence. 
Three  and  one,  said  St.  Augustine  ;  three  in  person,  one 
in  essence,  is  what  God  is,  according  to  the  teaching  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  We  believe  in  a  personal  God. 
It  is  the  belief  of  Catholics  that  this  essential  feature  of 
God's  nature  repeats  itself  in  three  distinct  ways,  so 
that  instead  of  one  Personality  in  God  there  are  three 
distinct  Persons,  and  He  is  Father,  Son,  or  Holy  Spirit, 
according  as  we  view  Him  in  one  or  other  Personality. 
By  reason  of  the  Divine  Infinitude  that  One  Personal 
Being  is  really  Three,  whilst  He  is  absolutely  One.  On 
the  Trinity  depend  the  Incarnation,  Death,  and  Resur- 
rection of  Christ ;  on  it  depends  the  equality  of  the 
Three  Divine  Persons  who  constitute  the  Godhead ;  on 
it  depends  the  oneness  of  essence  in  God.  Reject  it  and 
you  set  aside  the  satisfaction  made  by  a  Divine  Christ 
for  mankind  ;  you  eschew  the  whole  system  of  doctrines 
which  grows  out  of  the  Redemption.  There  are  mys- 
teries in  nature,  and  we  must  not  be  surprised  to  find 
some  in  revelation.  Even  the  mysterious  presents 
some  things  which  can  be  understood.     The  Trinity 

20 


THE   TRINITY.  21 

may  be  resolved  into  a  number  of  truths,  any  one  of 
which  is  easily  intelligible.  God  is  one.  The  Father  is 
God.  The  Son  is  God.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  God.  The 
Father  is  not  the  Son.  The  Son  is  not  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  Holy  Ghost  is  not  the  Father. 

Thus  far  there  is  no  mystery.  Each  truth  contained 
in  any  of  the  foregoing  propositions  may  well  be  appre- 
hended. Each  may  be  the  object  of  real  assent.  Even 
the  very  words  used — Father,  Son,  Holy  Spirit,  God, 
Three,  One, — are  in  a  sense  clear  and  popular,  and  cal- 
culated to  call  up  images  in  the  mind.  Religion  deals 
with  realities  and  particulars.  It  may  well  nourish  on 
the  truths  proposed,  and  in  them  find  motives  for  devo- 
tion and  affection.  The  mystery  consists  in  reconciling 
these  different  truths.  How  are  these  seven  statements 
at  the  same  time  true?  How  is  God  One,  and  yet 
Three  in  Person  ;  so  that  the  Father  is  all  that  we  mean 
by  the  word  God,  and  the  Son  is  all  that  we  mean  by 
the  word  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  all  that  we  mean 
by  the  word  God  ?  Does  not  the  idea  of  one  exclude 
the  idea  of  three,  and  vice  versa  ?  Herein  consists  the 
mystery.  The  brightest  human  intellect  can  not  grasp 
it.  "  In  the  Beatific  vision  of  God,"  says  a  well-known 
modern  writer,  u  shall  we,  through  His  grace,  be  found 
worthy  of  it,  we  shall  comprehend  clearly  what  we  now 
dutifully  repeat  and  desire  to  know,  how  the  Father 
Almighty  is  truly  and  by  Himself  God,  the  Eternal 
Son  truly  and  by  Himself  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
truly  and  by  Himself  God,  and  yet  not  Three  Gods 
but  One  God."  We  must  not  conclude  that  therefore 
the  Trinity  ought  to  be  rejected.  It  would  be  a  very 
poor  process  of  reasoning  to  say,  because  we  do  not 
understand  the  how  of  a  thing,  it  does  not,  on  that 


22  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

account,  exist.  On  the  same  principle  we  should 
refuse  to  believe  in  the  mysteries  of  nature,  although 
we  know  of  their  existence.  The  Trinity  itself  is  a 
mystery  ;  its  existence  is  not  mysterious.  It  is  con- 
cealed from  us  under  one  aspect ;  it  is  made  known  to 
us  under  another.  It  is  hidden  from  us  in  the  sense 
that  We  can  not  see  how  all  the  statements  of  which  the 
doctrine  is  composed  can,  when  taken  together,  be 
true.  We  know  there  is  within  us  an  invisible,  living, 
thinking  faculty  which  we  call  soul ;  that  it  is  united  to 
the  body  and  to  every  part  of  the  body.  How  it  is 
united,  how  it  works  in  the  body,  why  it  continues 
united  to  the  body  for  a  certain  length  of  time,  why  it 
does  not  fly  from  the  body  at  any  moment  and  leave  it 
a  soulless,  sightless  thing,  are  questions  we  can  not 
answer.  Yet  experience,  which  is  only  a  partial  stand- 
ard of  our  judgment,  tells  us  that  the  soul  is  united  to 
the  body  in  the  manner  indicated.  Thus  does  experi- 
ence outstrip  reason.  Why,  then,  we  may  well  ask, 
should  reason  be  a  fetter  on  our  belief  in  matters 
entirely  outside  its  province?  No  wonder  St.  Paul 
should  have  written  :  "  0,  the  depth  of  the  riches,  of 
the  wisdom  and  of  knowledge  of  God !  How  incom- 
prehensible are  his  judgments,  and  how  unsearchable 
his  ways  "  (Rom.  xi.  33).  We  can  not  prove  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Trinity  from  reason.  There  is  not  on  that 
account  any  opposition  between  them.  It  is  above,  not 
contrary,  to  reason.  There  is  no  contradiction  in  the 
doctrinal  statement  that  God  is  one  in  essence  and  three 
in  person.  A  faint  illustration  may  be  drawn  from  the 
human  soul.  It  is  one,  yet  it  has  three  distinct  powers  : 
the  memory,  the  understanding,  and  the  will.  Man  is 
one,  yet  he  is  threefold  in  life — animal,  rational,  and 
vegetative. 


THE   TRINITY.  23 

The  Trinity,  though  a  mystery,  and  therefore  con- 
cealed from  us  under  one  aspect  (otherwise  it  would  be 
no  mystery),  is  made  known  to  us  under  another. 
Though  outside  the  domain  of  reason  a  knowledge  of  it 
comes  to  us  from  the  second  great  source  of  truth — 
revelation.  Saints  of  the  Old  Testament  seem  to  have 
had  a  knowledge  of  the  Trinity.  That  grand  old  book 
points  out  many  parts  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine.  The 
Unity  of  God  was  certainly  an  article  of  Israel's  faith. 
In  Genesis  we  read  :  "  And  God  said  let  us  make  man 
to  our  image  and  likeness  "  (i.  26).  The  words,  "  God 
said,"  prove  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead ;  the  words, 
"  Let  us  make  man,"  point  to  a  plurality  of  persons  in 
the  Godhead.  Many  other  passages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment indicate  that  there  are  more  persons  than  one  in 
God  ;  for  example  :  "The  Lord  said  to  my  Lord,  sit 
thou  on  my  right  hand"  (Psalm  cix.  1);  "The  Lord 
said  to  me  :  you  are  my  Son,  I  have  begotten  you 
to-day  "  (Psalm  ii.  7). 

The  two  chief  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  John 
and  Paul,  are  full  of  references  to  fragments  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  to  truths  that  are  meaningless 
unless  we  accept  the  Trinity.  They  tell  us  of  the  love 
of  the  First  Person,  the  grace  of  the  Second,  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Third ;  they  tell  us  of  the  foreknowledge 
of  the  Father,  the  Blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  sanctifica- 
tion  of  the  Spirit ;  they  tell  us  we  are  to  "  pray  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  abide  in  the  love  of  God,  and  look  for  the 
mercy  of  Jesus  ;  "  they  are  forever  ringing  the  changes 
on  the  various  truths  into  which  the  Trinity  may  be 
resolved. 

Let  us  take  a  step  further  and  yet  not  in  the  dark. 
We  find  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  distinctly  stated  in 


24  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

the  New  Testament.  The  absolute  unity  of  God  is 
emphatically  stated  throughout.  "To  God,  the  only 
wise,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  be  honor  and  glory 
forever  and  ever"  (Rom.  16,  27).  "And  this  is  life 
everlasting ;  that  they  may  know  the  only  true  God, 
*  *  *  "  (John  xvii.  3).  "  Which  in  his  times  he 
shall  show,  who  is  the  Blessed  and  only  Mighty,  the 
King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords  "  (I  Tim.  vi.  15).  The 
New  Testament  also  teaches  that  there  are  Three  Per- 
sons really  distinct  and  divine  in  God.  This,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  Unity  of  God,  is  the  doctrine  of 
the  Blessed  Trinity.  All  who  believe  in  the  existence 
of  a  Supreme  Being  admit  the  divinity  of  God  the 
Father.  If  any  of  the  Three  Persons  be  God,  it  is  the 
Father,  for  He  is  the  source  of  the  other  Two.  The 
three  Creeds,  the  Apostles',  the  Nicene,  and  the  Atha- 
nasian,  profess  a  belief  in  God  the  Father  Almighty. 
The  distinct  existence  and  divinity  of  the  Son  is  taught 
with  singular  lucidity  and  noteworthy  iteration  in  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John  :  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word, 
and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God. 
The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God.  All  things 
were  made  by  Him  and  without  Him  was  made  noth- 
ing that  was  made  "  (i.  1-3).  The  Word  was  the  Sec- 
ond Person  of  the  Blessed  Trinity,  or  Jesus  Christ ;  for, 
later  on  in  this  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  we  are 
told  that  this  same  Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt 
amongst  us.  The  Word  was  in  the  beginning,  that 
is,  from  all  eternity,  and  therefore  God.  All  things 
were  made  by  this  Word.  Hence,  again,  we  conclude 
that  the  Word  is  God,  for  none  but  God  can  create. 
That  the  personality  of  the  Second  Person  is  a  distinct 
one,  is  clear    from  the  phrase,    "And  the   Word  was 


THE   TRINITY.  25 

with  God,"  that  is,  in  active  communication  with  God 
the  Father.  As  the  spoken  word  is  distinct  from  the 
speaker,  so  is  the  Divine  Word  distinct  from  God  the 
Father.  The  New  Testament  also  tells  us  of  the  divine 
and  distinct  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  stern, 
hard  words  of  Peter,  when  reproaching  Ananias,  state 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God.  "Why  hath  Satan 
tempted  thy  heart,  that  thou  shouldst  lie  to  the  Holy 
Ghost?  *****  Thou  hast  not  lied  to  man, 
but  to  God"  (Acts  v.  3,  4).  His  distinct  personality 
is  asserted  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul :  "All  these  things 
one  and  the  same  Spirit  worketh,  dividing  to  each  sep- 
arately, as  He  wills  "  (I  Cor.  xii.  11). 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  also  revealed  to  us  in 
these  words  :  "  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost "  (Math,  xxviii.  19).  Here 
the  Three  Persons  are  mentioned  as  really  distinct. 
Baptism  is  administered  in  the  name  of  the  Son  and  in 
the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as  in  the  name  of 
the  Father.  Lest  we  should  load  down  the  page  with 
texts  we  shall  merely  give  one  more,  and  this  time  from 
the  Apostle  of  love,  St.  John.  His  words  are  :  "  But 
when  the  Paraclete  shall  come  which  I  will  send  to  you 
from  the  Father,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  who  proceedeth 
from  the  Father,  He  shall  give  testimony  of  Me  "  (xv. 
26).  It  is  Christ  who  uses  these  words.  He  speaks  of 
Himself;  He  speaks  of  the  Paraclete  or  Holy  Spirit; 
He  speaks  of  the  Father  ;  He  points  out  the  Trinity  of 
Persons  in  the  one  Godhead. 

There  is  in  the  Church  a  very  old  practice  of  making 
the  sign  of  the  Cross,  saying  at  the  same  time:  M  In  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 


26  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

Ghost,  Amen."  It  is  a  profession  of  faith  in  the  Blessed 
Trinity,  and  Tertullian,  an  able  writer  of  the  second 
century,  tells  us  what  was  the  belief  of  the  Church  in 
his  time  on  this  matter.  He  writes :  "  In  all  our 
actions,  when  we  come  in  or  go  out,  when  we  dress, 
when  we  walk,  at  our  meals,  before  retiring  to  sleep, 
*  *  *  *  we  form  on  our  foreheads  the  sign  of  the 
Cross.  These  practices  are  not  recorded  by  a  formal 
law  of  Scripture,  but  tradition  teaches  them,  custom 
confirms  them,  faith  observes  them." 

The  old  and  universal  belief  of  the  Church  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  is  expressed  in  the 
words  :  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and  to 
the  Holy  Ghost, 

The  Athanasian  Creed  has  been  well  called  the  war- 
song  of  faith.  Whether  this  symbol  was  drawn  up  by 
St.  Athanasius  or  not,  certain  it  is,  that  it  is  a  very  full 
statement  of  our  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  that  it 
was  universally  received  at  a  very  early  period  in  the 
history  of  the  Church.  Though  Adam  and  his  wife 
may  smile  at  the  claims  of  long  descent,  yet  it  is  con- 
soling to  know  when  there  is  question  of  some  point 
of  doctrine,  that  it  is  the  same  now  as  that  which  was 
taught  at  a  time  when  all  say  the  Catholic  Church  was 
the  only  true  Church  on  earth.  The  Athanasian  Creed 
says  :  "  This  is  Catholic  faith,  that  we  worship  one  God 
in  the  Trinity,  and  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  neither  con- 
founding the  Persons  nor  separating  the  substance.  The 
Person  of  the  Father  is  distinct  from  that  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  Person  of  the  Son  is  distinct 
from  that  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  Per- 
son of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  distinct  from  that  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son.     But  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and 


THE   TRINITY.  27 

of  the  Holy  Ghost  there  is  one  divinity,  equal  glory,  co- 
eternal  majesty.  As  is  the  Father,  such  is  the  Son, 
such  is  the  Holy  Ghost. "  Then  the  Creed  tells  us  of 
the  immensity,  the  eternity  and  the  omnipotence  of 
each  Person  :  that  each  Person  is  God,  and  yet  not  three 
Gods  but  one  ;  that  each  Person  is  Lord,  and  yet  not 
three  Lords  but  one.  The  relationship  which  exists 
between  the  Three  Persons  of  the  Adorable  Trinity  is 
next  pointed  out.  Though  the  Three  Persons  existed 
from  all  eternity — for  each  is  truly  God — yet  the  Son 
proceeds  from  the  Father  by  generation,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  comes  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  by  proces- 
sion. The  Father  looks  into  His  own  essence  as  into  a 
limitless  ocean  or  boundless  mirror,  and  there  sees  His 
own  image  or  exemplar,  and  that  image  is  the  Son.  The 
Father  loves  the  Son  with  an  infinite  and  eternal  love  ; 
the  Son  returns  the  affection  ;  and  that  mutual  love  is 
the  Holy  Spirit.  That  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
come  from  the  Father  is  no  reason  why  they  should 
not  be  eternal  as  is  the  Father.  Light  is  the  product 
of  the  great  day-star.  It  is  the  principle  of  light,  and 
yet  light  is  as  old  as  the  sun.  The  moment  the  latter 
began  to  be,  it  could  not  help  shining  and  its  lustre 
immediately  gave  light  and  heat.  Similarly  from  all 
eternity  the  Father  saw  His  image,  or  God  the  Son, 
and  from  all  eternity  the  Father  and  the  Son  loved  each 
other,  and  this  love,  or  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  from 
all  eternity.  We  accept  revelation.  We  find  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  contained  in  it.  If  there  were  a 
contradiction  in  the  doctrine  Jesus  Christ  would  have 
known  it. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 

WE  should  try  to  know  as  well  as  to  believe;  to  under- 
stand, while  we  pray.  If  Christ  be  not  divine, 
Christianity  is  a  mere  human  institution,  a  mere  sys- 
tem of  natural  religion,"and  worthy  of  no  more  respect 
than  any  other  well-developed  and  systematized  form  of 
philosophy.  If  Christ  be  God,  then  the  religion  which 
He  tells  us  it  was  His  mission  to  establish  must  also 
be  divine. 

All  the  ancient  people  looked  forward  to  a  Messiah. 
It  is  somewhat  remarkable  to  find  the  inhabitants  of 
ancient  Greece  and  Rome,  and  India  and  Egypt,  and 
the  aborigines  of  America,  and  indeed  all  the  nations 
of  antiquity,  unanimous  in  holding  the  doctrines  of 
man's  fall;  the  necessity  of  propitiatory  sacrifice;  and 
the  redemption  of  man  by  a  divine  Redeemer  ;  so  that 
it  would  seem  these  doctrines  belonged  to  a  primitive 
revelation  made  to  our  first  parents.  Besides  the  belief 
in  these  truths,  preserved  in  the  midst  of  so  much  error 
and  corruption,  the  dispersion  of  the  chosen  people 
prepared  the  nations  of  the  earth  for  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah.  In  the  words  of  Genesis,  "  I  will  put  enmity 
between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  thy  seed  and  her 
seed,"  etc.  (iii.  15),  we  find  a  promise  of  the  Messiah. 
A  promise  was  made  to  Abraham  that  in  him  all  the 

23 


THE   DIVINITY   OF  CHRIST.  29 

nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed  ;  Jacob  foretold 
that  the  sceptre  should  not  pass  from  Juda  till  the  com- 
ing of  Him  who  was  the  Expected  of  nations,  and  He 
was  to  establish,  not  a  national  religion,  but  an  uni- 
versal one.    The  sceptre  had  passed  from  the  house  of 
Juda ;  Daniel's  seventy  weeks  of  years  had  been  com- 
pleted ;  the  second  temple  had  been  still  standing,  before 
the  Messiah  appeared.      We  may  well  ask  ourselves 
where   would  the  world  be  to-day  if  that  Galilean 
Peasant  had  not  been  born,  and  lived,  and  loved,  and 
died  for  us  ?    The  fulfillment  of  the  prophecies  in  Jesus 
Christ  shows  Him  to  have  been  the  promised  Messiah. 
It  was  foretold  that  the  Jews  should  be  dispersed  by 
way  of  punishment  for  not  having  received  Christ ; 
after  His  death  they  were  scattered,  and  ever  since  have 
been  wanderers  on  the  face  of  the  earth.     The  public 
life  of  the  Saviour  was  to  have  been  a  life  of  many 
miracles ;  the  Gospels — those  brief  sketches  of   His 
career — show  how  He  quelled  the  tempest,  healed  the 
sick,  raised  the  dead  to  life,  etc.     He  was  to  have  been 
born  at  Bethlehem  ;    that  obscure  village  has  been 
made  forever  famous  by  His  birth.     He  was  to  have 
come  from  the  family  of  David  ;  Mary,  His  mother, 
belonged  to  that  royal  house.     He  was  to  have  died  for 
our  sins  ;  the  Evangelists  write  with  such  a  fullness  of 
detail  and  such  an  independence  of  narration  as  to  put 
the  actuality  of  His  death  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt. 
Christ  is  more  than  a  mere  messenger  from  God,  such 
as  were  the  prophets.     It  has  become  fashionable  to 
speak  of  Him  as  a  Plato,  a  Socrates,  an  Aristotle,  a 
Pythagoras,  a  Zoroaster,  a  Confucius,  a  Mohammed,  or 
as  some  great  man  who,  they  say,  has  been  raised  up  for 
a  special  purpose.    Even  if  Christ  were  a  great  philoso- 


30  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

pher  and  nothing  more,  or  a  great  philanthropist  and 
only  that,  yet  people  should  love  Him  much  as  they 
reverence  any  great  benefactor  of  the  human  race.  It 
is  not  enough  to  say  that  God  dwells  in  Him,  as  He 
does  in  every  just  man  ;  nor  will  it  do  to  say  that  the 
divinity  is  in  Him  preeminently.  We  hold  and  teach 
that  Christ  is  as  truly  and  properly  God  as  the  Father 
and  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  true  doctrine  of  the  divinity 
of  Christ  is,  that  He  is  one  in  person,  that  He  has  two 
natures,  the  human  and  the  divine — the  human  received 
from  Mary,  quickened  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  the  divine 
coming  from  the  Father  from  all  eternity.  The  human 
nature  is  perfect.  The  human  body  of  Christ  is  a  per- 
fect human  body  ;  the  human  soul  of  Christ  is  a  perfect 
human  soul.  Christ's  human  soul  possesses  self-con- 
sciousness, not,  however,  having  final  dominion  over 
itself,  for  it  meets  divine  consciousness  and  knows  that 
it  belongs  to  a  divine  person,  to  whom  all  its  acts  are 
referred.  Christ  is  omnipotent,  eternal,  infinite  ;  these 
attributes  He  has  from  His  divine  nature.  We  say  He 
suffered  and  died ;  these  are  compatible  only  with 
human  nature.  Christ  is  the  embodiment  of  Christianity, 
and  therefore  the  target  for  all  its  opponents.  In  the 
early  days  of  Christianity  the  attack  was  led  by  Celsus, 
and  was  of  a  low,  vulgar,  filthy  kind.  The  attacks  of 
the  last  century  were  remarkable  for  their  coarseness, 
their  slanders,  their  denunciations.  The  modern  style 
is  gentler  and  comparatively  appreciative.  They  speak 
of  Christ  in  language  of  dulcet  tenderness ;  they  speak 
of  Him  as  having  brought  calmness,  and  beauty,  and 
gentleness  among  men  ;  they  speak  of  Him  as  being 
greater  than  any  of  the  philosophers,  and  as  having 
established  a  moral  code  superior  to  anything  hitherto 


THE   DIVINITY   OF  CHRIST.  31 

known  in  the  world.  This  is  not  enough  for  us.  We 
want  a  divine  Christ,  divine  with  the  divinity  of  God 
the  Father,  or  God  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  divinity  of  Christ  is  an  article  of  Catholic  faith. 
In  that  very  old  summary  of  doctrine,  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  we  profess  our  belief  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  only 
Son  of  God,  who  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  suffered  under  Pilate,  was 
crucified,  dead  and  buried,  and  rose  again  from  the 
dead  the  third  day.  In  the  Nicene  Creed  we  say  : 
"  And  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  only-begotten  Son 
of  God,  and  born  of  the  Father  before  all  ages,  God  of 
God,  light  of  light,  true  God  of  true  God,  begotten  not 
made,  consubstantial  to  the  Father  by  whom  all  things 
were  made.',  In  the  Athanasian  Creed,  Christ  is  called 
perfect  God  and  perfect  Man. 

The  texts  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Testament, 
asserting  in  various  ways  the  divinity  of  Christ,  are 
almost  innumerable.  In  the  New  Testament  He  is 
constantly  and  everywhere  called  The  Son  of  God. 
He  is  called  the  Son  of  God  by  the  Father  :  "And  He 
was  there  until  the  death  of  Herod,  that  it  might  be 
fulfilled  which  the  Lord  spoke  by  the  prophet  saying, 
out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  Son  "  (Math.  ii.  15). 
He  calls  Himself  the  Son  of  God:  "All  things  are 
delivered  to  me  by  my  Father,  and  no  one  knoweth 
the  Son  but  the  Father,  neither  doth  any  one  know  the 
Father  but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  will  re- 
veal Him"  (Math.  xi.  27).  He  is  called  the  Son  of 
God  by  the  angel  Gabriel :  "  He  shall  be  great  and 
shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Most  High,  and  the  Son 
of  God  shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of  David  his 
father,  and  he  shall  reign  in  the  house  of  Jacob  forever  " 


32  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

(Luke  i.  32).  He  is  called  the  Son  of  God  by  the  in- 
spired writers,  by  the  disciples  and  others  of  the  faith- 
ful :  "  Then  they  that  were  in  the  ship  came  and  wor- 
shiped Him,  saying,  Thou  art  truly  the  son  of  God  " 
(Math.  xiv.  33).  The  circumstances  in  which  the 
title,  The  Son  of  God,  is  applied  to  Him,  are  note- 
worthy. In  the  New  Testament  we  find  the  phrase, 
sons  of  God,  a  common  name  applied  to  all  men  who 
enjoy  His  friendship  ;  in  the  Old  Testament  the  name 
a  son  of  God  is  used  on  one  or  two  occasions,  but  never 
as  a  proper  name,  never  as  a  peculiar  and  distinguish- 
ing title,  such  as  is  the  title,  The  Son  of  God,  given  to 
Christ.  When  we  speak  of  the  Virgin,  all  Catholics 
know  we  refer  to  Mary,  the  mother  of  God.  When  we 
speak  of  the  proto-martyr  everybody  knows  we  mean  St. 
Stephen.  When  we  mention  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles 
it  is  well  known  that  St.  Peter  is  the  one  to  whom  we  re- 
fer. In  like  manner  is  the  name,  The  Son  of  God,  Christ's 
distinguishing  title.  This  proper  name  is  a  proof  of 
His  divinity.  Let  us  take  an  example:  The  Jews  ac- 
cused Him  of  breaking  the  Sabbath  because  He  cured 
the  lame  man  on  the  Lord's  day.  Christ's  answer  was  : 
u  My  Father  worked  until  now,  and  I  work "  (John 
v.  17).  The  Jews  understood  Him  by  this  expression 
to  claim  that  He  was  God.  "  Hereupon,  therefore,  the 
Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill  Him,  because  He  did  not 
only  break  the  Sabbath,  but  also  said  that  God  was  His 
Father,  making  himself  equal  to  God  "  (John  v.  18). 
They  rightly  understood  Him.  If  they  did  not,  He 
would  have  been  bound  as  an  honest  man — and  nobody 
ever  impeached  Christ's  honesty — to  correct  their  error. 
What  does  He  do?  So  far  from  rejecting  the  interpre- 
tation put  upon   His   language,  He    reasserts,  in  the 


THE   DIVINITY   OF   CHRIST.  33 

clearest  words,  His  divinity :  "Amen,  amen  I  say  unto 
you,  the  Son  cannot  do  anything  of  Himself,  but  what 
the  Father  doeth,  for  what  things  soever  He  doeth, 
these  the  Son  also  doeth  in  like  manner  "  (v.  19).  He 
even  goes  on  to  confirm  His  statement  of  His  own 
divinity  by  evidence  drawn  from  various  sources.  He 
confirms  it  by  the  authority  of  John  the  Baptist : 
"There  is  another  that  beareth  witness  of  me,  and  I 
know  that  the  witness  which  he  witnesseth  of  me  is 
true.  You  sent  to  John  and  he  gave  testimony  of  the 
truth  "  (v.  32,  33).  He  appeals  to  the  evidence  of  His 
own  works :  "  But  I  have  a  greater  testimony  than 
that  of  John.  For  the  works  which  the  Father  hath 
given  me  to  perfect,  the  works  themselves  which  I  do, 
give  testimony  of  me,  that  the  Father  hath  sent  me  " 
(36).  He  appeals  to  the  testimony  of  His  Father : 
"And  the  Father  Himself,  who  hath  sent  me,  hath  given 
testimony  of  me "  (37).  Finally  He  appeals  to  the 
testimony  of  Holy  Scriptures  :  "  Search  the  Scriptures, 
for  you  think  in  them  to  have  life  everlasting,  and  the 
same  are  they  that  give  testimony  of  me  "  (39). 

St.  John's  purpose  in  writing  his  Gospel  was  to 
teach  us  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  that  believ- 
ing, we  may  have  life  in  His  name.  The  very  first 
chapter  of  that  Gospel  abounds  with  proofs  of  Christ's 
divinity.  We  read  :  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word, 
and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God. 
All  things  were  made  by  Him,  and  without  Him  was 
made  nothing  that  was  made.  *  *  *  And  the 
Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us."  *  *  * 
(John  i.  15). 

The  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity  proceeds  from  the 
Father,  as  a  word  from  the  mouth,  or  as  wisdom  from 


34  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

the  mind.  He  is  called  the  Word.  The  phrase,  "Word 
of  God,"  has  had  its  place  in  the  philosophic  language 
of  Greece  since  the  days  of  Plato.  We  reason  in  this 
way  :  Christ  is  the  Word.  The  Word  is  God.  There- 
fore Christ  is  God.  That  Christ  is  the  Word  is  evident. 
St.  John  says  that  the  Word  was  the  light  of  men,  that 
John  the  Baptist  gave  testimony  of  the  light,  that  the 
"  Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us." 

That  the  Word  is  God  there  is  marvelous  proof  in 
this  Gospel.  The  Word  was  in  the  beginning;  that  is, 
before  time  was,  and  therefore  from  all  eternity,  and 
therefore  is  God.  This  reasoning  is  strengthened  by  the 
following  words  from  the  seventeenth  chapter  :  "And 
now  glorify  thou  me,  0  Father,  with  thyself,  with  the 
glory  I  had  before  the  world  was,  with  thee  "  (5).  But 
the  divinity  of  Christ  is  stated  with  striking  directness 
in  the  last  clause  of  the  first  verse  of  the  Gospel  of  St. 
John  :  "And  the  Word  was  God."  Creation  is  the 
production  of  a  thing  from  nothing.  The  immeasur- 
able abyss  which  separates  nothingness  from  existence 
requires  divinity  to  overcome  it.  This  obstacle  van- 
ishes in  the  presence  of  the  Divine  Word,  for  we  are 
told  that  all  things  were  made  by  Him  (2).  The  Word, 
then,  is  the  Creator,  hence  is  God  ;  and,  as  the  Word  is 
Christ,  we  lawfully  conclude  :  therefore  Christ  is  God. 

Divine  honors  were  paid  to  Christ.  Adoration  such 
as  is  due  to  God  was  given  Him.  He  allowed  the  man 
born  blind,  the  pious  women,  and  His  disciples  to  pay 
Him  divine  honors  ;  He  did  not  reprove  the  doubting 
Thomas,  who,  after  the  required  proof  had  been  given, 
cried  out,  "  My  Lord  and  my  God."  Christ  would  have 
refused  all  this  if  He  were  not  God,  as  Paul  and  Barnabas 
rejected  the  divine  honors  offered  to  them  at  Athens. 


THE   DIVINITY   OF   CHRIST.  35 

Christ  taught  His  own  divinity.  He  declares  Him- 
self greater  than  Moses,  than  the  prophets,  than  John 
the  Baptist ;  He  claims  the  power  of  forgiving  sin,  and 
transmits  that  power  to  others  ;  He  speaks  with  His 
own  authority  ;  He  foretells  coming  events,  because  He 
knows  all  things  ;  He  reads  men's  secret  thoughts  ;  He 
acknowledges  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God  when  appealed 
to  solemnly  by  the  High  Priest :  "  And  the  high  priest 
said  to  Him,  I  adjure  thee  by  the  living  God,  that  thou 
tell  us  if  thou  be  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  Jesus  said  to 
him  :  Thou  hast  said  it "  (Math.  xxvi.  63,  64).  The 
Jews  understood  Him  by  this  expression  to  claim  that 
He  was  God,  not  because  He  possessed  reason  and  intel- 
ligence in  a  high  degree,  not  because  He  was  endowed 
with  eminent  sanctity,  but  because  He  was  in  every 
way  the  equal  of  God  the  Father.  He  rejected  not 
their  understanding  of  His  words  ;  He  confirmed  it  by 
His  death.  "  The  Jews  answered  him  (Pilate),  we 
have  a  law,  and  according  to  the  law  He  ought  to  die, 
because  He  made  himself  the  Son  of  God  "  (xix.  7). 
Jesus  Christ  has  pledged  us  His  word  that  He  is  God, 
and  His  testimony  is  true.  He  is  a  trustworthy  witness, 
for  no  sane  man  will  believe  that  He  was  deceived,  and 
no  one  will  have  the  hardihood  to  assert,  in  the  light  of 
a  life  so  obviously  honest,  that  He  wished  to  deceive 
others. 

Christ's  disciples  declared  His  divinity.  All  the 
Evangelists  teach  it.  There  are  four  other  writers  of 
the  New  Testament — Peter,  Paul,  James,  and  Jude. 
All  these,  even  Jude  in  his  brief  epistle  of  one  chapter, 
teach  the  divinity  of  our  Lord.  It  was  taught  through- 
out the  entire  early  Church,  so  that  when  Arius  denied 
it  in  the  fourth  century  he  had  scarcely  a  friend  in  the 
hierarchy. 


36  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

Christ's  credentials  are  the  miracles  which  He 
wrought,  and  the  prophecies  which  He  uttered.  The 
former  attest  His  divinity,  since  none  but  God  can  work 
s,  miracle,  and  the  historical  evidence  alone  of  the  Gos- 
pel narratives  places  these  miracles  beyond  all  doubt. 
Prophecies  also  prove  His  divinity,  for  none  but  God 
possesses  the  habitual  gift  of  looking  into  the  future 
and  there  reading  of  things  contingent.  Julian,  the 
Apostate,  tried  to  rebuild  the  Temple,  in  order  to  falsify 
the  prophecy  :  "  Behold  your  house  shall  be  left  you 
desolate."  But  history  records  the  fact  that  the  Gali- 
lean conquered.  His  prophecies  have  been  tried  in  the 
bitterest  crucible  and  have  stood  the  test  of  centuries. 

Christ  did  not  destroy,  but  absorbed  all  that  was 
good  in  Judaism.  His  life  is  ineffaceably  wrought  into 
the  nobler  social  conceptions  of  the  world.  He  enforced 
lessons  of  morality  with  a  power  and  a  beauty  which 
had  then  no  parallel,  and  which  have  since  had  no 
revival.  Christ  is  greater  than  any  conqueror  the  world 
has  ever  seen,  because  He  is  divine,  and  that  in  the 
highest  sense.  The  rapid  spread  of  the  teaching  of  Mo- 
hammed is  no  more  marvelous  than  the  fleet  conquests 
of  Alexander  or  Napoleon.  Mohammed  and  Moham- 
medans conquered  by  the  sword  ;  Christ  and  Christians 
triumphed  by  the  Cross.  It  is  because  of  the  divinity 
of  Christ  that  the  effects  of  His  life  on  e'arth  are  so 
much  more  abiding  than  the  results  of  the  greatest  con- 
querors, the  systems  of  the  profoundest  philosophers, 
or  the  teachings  of  other  religious  founders. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

MIBACLES. 

EVEN  though  the  impiety  of  some  had  never  exerted 
itself  to  make  people  disbelieve  in  miracles  and 
thus  to  set  aside  one  of  the  positive  marks  of  revela- 
tion, and  a  leading  proof  of  Christianity,  yet  this  sub- 
ject has  sufficient  interest  and  indeed  utility  to  engage 
our  attention.  Cardinal  Newman  points  out  that  the 
consideration  of  miracles  helps  to  banish  ideas  of  Fate 
and  Necessity,  has  a  tendency  to  rouse  conscience,  to 
awaken  a  sense  of  responsibility,  to  remind  of  duty,  and 
to  direct  attention  to  those  marks  of  divine  government 
already  contained  in  the  ordinary  course  of  events. 
We  talk  of  the  miracles  of  Lourdes  ;  of  the  miracles  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament ;  of  the  miracles  wrought 
by  this  or  that  saint ;  of  the  miracles  required  for  the 
beatification  of  the  blessed  or  for  the  canonization  of 
the  sainted  ;  to  say  nothing  of  the  higher  object  of  cer- 
tain miracles,  namely,  as  evidences  of  revealed  religion, 
all  of  which  circumstances  clothe  the  subject  with  not 
a  little  interest. 

A  miracle  supposes  the  existence  of  God,  and  is  no 
argument  to  one  who  is  on  principle  an  Atheist.  It  is 
hardly  necessary,  in  order  to  get  an  idea  of  what  a 
miracle  is,  to  go  back  to  first  principles  and  prove  the 
existence  of  a  Supreme  Being,  a  fact  abundantly  evi- 

37 


38  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

dent  from  this,  that  things  exist,  for  otherwise  how 
could  they  begin  to  be  ?  From  the  clock-work  order  of 
the  universe,  for  you  may  as  reasonably  expect  a  watch 
without  a  watchmaker  as  this  universe  with  all  its  com- 
plicated machinery  without  a  Creator ;  from  the  unani- 
mous consent  of  all  nations  acknowledging  in  some  way 
a  Supreme  Being,  for  how  otherwise  could  this  idea  be 
stamped  upon  the  minds  and  hearts  of  all  peoples  ? 

God,  and  God  alone,  can  work  a  miracle,  for  it  is 
something  done  above,  or  beyond,  or  against  the  order 
of  created  nature.  Everything  that  has  been  created, 
the  material  as  well  as  the  spiritual,  the  human  soul 
as  well  as  the  earth,  goes  to  make  up  what  is  called 
created  nature.  God  gave  to  His  handiwork  a  certain 
force  or  energy ;  the  use  of  that  energy  is  action,  the 
need  of  using  it  according  to  rule  is  law,  and  the 
perceptible  result  from  energy  so  applied  i3  order.  In 
all  creation  there  is  a  certain  order ;  the  same  causes 
in  the  same  circumstances  produce  the  same  effects. 
When  a  miracle  is  worked,  nature's  laws  are  said  to  be 
set  aside,  or  are  suspended,  or  better  is  it  to  say  super- 
seded, for  a  higher  power  is  brought  to  bear  upon  them. 
Jesus  raised  Lazarus  from  the  dead.  Nature  could  not 
give  life  to  the  dead  body  of  Lazarus  ;  it  was  altogether 
beyond  its  power  to  give  life  thus.  The  hand  of  the 
miracle-worker  was  required  to  do  it. 

The  very  essence  of  a  miracle  demands  that  it  be  in 
some  sense  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature,  and  that 
it  be  the  work  of  God.  Hence,  the  creation  of  a  human 
soul  and  its  mysterious  union  with  and  workings  in 
the  body  ;  hence,  even  the  justification  of  the  sinner,  a 
thing  greater  than  the  creation  of  heaven  and  earth, 
are  not  miracles,  for  they  take  place  according  to  a  cer- 


MIRACLES.  6\f 

tain  uniform  course  of  nature.  Hence,  also,  the  works 
of  the  angels,  be  they  angels  of  light  or  angels  of  dark- 
ness, are  not  miracles.  Hence,  again,  when  we  say 
miracles  have  been  wrought  at  the  shrine  of  this  or  that 
saint,  or  at  those  places  made  sacred  by  our  Blessed 
Lord,  during  His  life  on  earth,  or  by  relics,  we  mean 
nothing  more  than  this,  that  God,  in  order  to  reward  the 
faith  of  the  people,  or  for  some  other  reason  known  to 
Himself,  intervenes  and  works  these  miracles  in  their 
regard.  And  when  we  hear  of  miracles  attributed  to 
the  saints,  or  to  the  beatified,  or  to  certain  pious  souls 
whose  names  are  not  enrolled  on  the  calendar  of  saints, 
nothing  more  is  meant  than  that  they  have  been  instru- 
ments in  God's  hands  of  miracle-working,  or  perhaps 
they  have  been  the  moral  causes ;  that  is,  by  their 
prayers  and  good  works  they  moved  God  to  the  per- 
formance of  them. 

Some  miracles  are  of  a  higher  order  than  others. 
This  we  find  fully  illustrated  in  the  miracles  of  the 
Gospel.  Christ  cures  the  ruler's  son  who  is  at  the  point 
of  death,  and  the  man  who  has  been  languishing  for 
thirty-eight  years.  These  are  miracles,  but  not  of  as 
high  an  order  as  the  restoration  to  life  of  the  widow's 
son,  or  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  or  of  Lazarus  ;  or  as 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  Himself. 

There  are  also  miracles  of  the  moral  order,  as  an 
example  of  which  I  should  mention  the  successful 
energy  and  perfect  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church 
through  so  many  ages.  No  merely  human  agency  can 
account  for  the  wonderful  spread  of  the  Catholic  Church 
through  such  weak  instruments  as  a  dozen  or  so  of  men 
for  the  most  part  unlettered,  against  obstacles  that, 
humanly  speaking,  were  insurmountable.     This  is  all 


40  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

the  more  obvious  when  we  consider  that  the  teachings 
of  the  Church  have  penetrated  the  innermost  recesses 
of  the  heart ;  have  allayed  the  pride  and  prejudices  and 
fierce  passions  of  humanity  ;  have  brought  to  unity 
men  of  different  nationalities,  and  languages,  and  cus- 
toms, and  modes  of  thought,  and  philosophies  ;  have 
reduced  to  their  sway  the  effeminate  courtier  and  the 
proud  philosopher  as  well  as  the  more  pliant  peasant ; 
have  made  the  members  of  that  Church  show  a  zeal 
and  practice  austerities  hitherto  unknown  in  the  world; 
and  made  them  suffer  and  die  in  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands during  the  persecutions  under  the  Roman  em- 
perors. 

The  question  of  the  possibility  of  miracles  is  for  us 
Catholics  an  easy  one.  For  the  Vatican  Council  has 
defined  :  "  If  any  one  shall  say  that  miracles  can  not 
be  wrought,  or  that  they  can  never  be  recognized  with 
certainty  as  such,  or  that  the  divine  origin  of  the 
Christian  faith  is  not  rightly  proved  by  miracles,  let 
him  be  anathema."  The  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  narrate  events  which  are  clearly  miraculous. 
If  we  had  no  well-authenticated  miraculous  events  to 
tell  us  of  their  possibility,  we  know  from  the  All-power- 
fulness  of  God  Himself  that  they  can  take  place,  because 
by  virtue  of  that  divine  attribute  God  can  do  all 
things  that  do  not  involve  a  contradiction.  Even  unbe- 
lievers do  not  always  go  to  the  length  of  denying  the 
possibility  of  miracles.  "  If  you  ask  me,"  writes  Tyn- 
dall  in  his  "  Fragments  of  Science,"  "  who  is  to  limit 
the  outgoings  of  Almighty  Power,  my  answer  is,  not  I. 
If  you  should  urge  that  if  the  Builder  and  Maker  of 
this  universe  chose  to  stop  the  rotation  of  the  earth — 
there  is  nothing  to  prevent  Him  from  doing  so — I  am 


MIRACLES.  41 

not  prepared  to  contradict  you.  It  is  a  subject  of 
which  I  know  nothing."  Huxley  puts  it  still  more 
pointedly  when  he  says  :  "  It  is  and  always  has  been  a 
favorite  tenet  of  mine  that  Atheism  is  as  absurd,  logic- 
ally speaking,  as  Polytheism.  Denying  the  possibility 
of  miracles  seems  to  me  quite  as  unjustifiable  as  specu- 
lative Atheism."  Renan  and  Rousseau  are  equally 
explicit.  The  latter  becomes  indignant  that  any  one 
should  question  whether  or  not  God  can  derogate  from 
the  laws  which  He  Himself  has  established,  and 
declares  the  subject,  if  seriously  treated,  would  be 
impious,  if  not  absurd.  Surely  the  Creator  of  force  and 
matter  can  also  annihilate  them,  and  if  He  can  annihi- 
late them,  there  is  nothing  unreasonable  in  holding  that 
He  can  modify  them. 

From  a  Christian  point  of  view,  miracles  have 
more  value  than  at  first  blush  we  may  be  inclined  to 
give  them.  They  are  decisive  proofs  of  the  truth  of 
any  doctrine  in  favor  of  which  they  may  have  been 
wrought.  For  God  alone  can  work  a  miracle.  "  Praise 
the  Lord,  for  He  is  good,  for  His  mercy  endureth 
for  ever.  Who  alone  doth  great  wonders,  for  His 
mercy  endureth  for  ever"  (Psalm  cxxxv.  1-4).  A 
miracle  is  simply  the  voice  of  God.  When  He  fed 
the  Israelites  with  manna  it  was  as  plainly  and  as 
eloquently  the  voice  of  God  as  if  He  had  come  down 
from  Heaven  and  preached  a  panegyric  on  the  virtue 
of  charity.  The  fiery  serpents  expressed  God's  wrath 
as  clearly  as  did  His  words  when  He  said,  "I  will 
destroy  this  stiff-necked  people."  Even  man  can  express 
his  thoughts  in  many  ways.  There  is  a  language  of  the 
eye,  and  of  the  brow,  and  of  the  cheek,  and  of  the  arm, 
as  well  as  of  the  tongue.    And  sometimes  it  is  more 


42  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

expressive  than  the  spoken  word.  Miracles  are  the 
speech  of  God,  and  when  worked  to  prove  anything,  are 
God's  eloquence  in  favor  of  the  truth  of  that  thing. 

But  to  come  down  more  to  particulars.  The  mir- 
acles worked  by  our  Lord  prove  to  demonstration  the 
divinity  of  the  Christian  religion,  for,  as  we  have  seen, 
they  are  God's  evidence  of  its  truth.  These  miracles 
are  narrated  in  the  historical  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Passing  by  for  the  moment  the  inspired  author- 
ity of  the  sacred  narratives,  all  must  admit  their  histor- 
ical worth.  All  must  give  to  them  that  amount  of 
credence  which  they  can  not  withhold  from  a  respect- 
able book  of  history.  And  this,  because  they  are  gen- 
uine, and  bear  the  stamp  of  integrity  and  veracity. 
The  fathers  and  other  writers,  even  non-Catholics,  give 
evidence  that  they  were  written  by  those  whose  names 
they  bear,  and  about  the  time  they  claim  to  have  been 
written.  Nor  could  anyone  else  write  these  books  and 
hope  with  success  to  attribute  them  to  the  Apostles. 
No  Jew  or  heathen  would  attribute  such  miracles  to 
Christ  as  the  Gospels  speak  of,  and  if  they  or  anyone 
else  did  write  these  books  and  then  falsely  say  that 
they  were  the  effusions  of  the  Apostles,  a  remonstrance 
loud  and  long  should  have  been  heard,  but  of  this  there 
is  not  a  single  trace.  For  this  reason,  also,  as  well  as 
for  others,  we  know  that  these  miracle-narratives  have 
come  down  to  us  free  from  any  substantial  change. 

They  bear  about  them  all  the  evidences  of  fact. 
Some  of  the  writers  were  eye-witnesses  and  ear-wit- 
nesses to  the  facts  of  which  they  wrote.  The  facts  were 
public,  obvious,  done  sometimes  under  their  very  eyes, 
at  different  times  and  places,  fraught  with  the  greatest 
consequences,  of  the  utmost  importance  in  themselves, 


MIRACLES.  43 

as  also  by  reason  of  the  object  for  which  they  were 
accomplished.  Names  of  persons,  and  places,  and 
dates,  are  given,  so  that  if  fraud  existed  it  could  be 
easily  detected.  People  do  not  practice  deception 
unless  they  expect  some  benefit.  For  a  greater  reason 
they  do  not  deceive,  if,  as  a  result,  they  may  expect 
poverty,  persecution,  and  death.  And  if  they  wished 
to  deceive  they  could  not  do  so  ;  because  the  facts  were 
too  public,  too  grave,  too  opposed  to  the  prejudices  of 
the  people,  having  for  their  object  the  subversion  of 
tenets  consecrated  by  time-honored  custom,  and  the 
propagation  of  a  religion  hateful  to  the  people  and 
their  ruler,  so  detested  that  they  put  its  founder,  Jesus 
Christ,  to  death. 

Christ  came  on  earth  to  establish  a  religion,  and  He 
proved  by  miracles  that  Christianity  is  from  God.  He 
showed  that  He  was  Lord  of  inanimate  creation  by 
changing  water  into  wine,  by  calming  the  sea  and  the 
tempest,  and  by  feeding  the  hungry  multitude  with  the 
multiplied  loaves  and  fishes.  He  further  showed  His 
divine  mission  by  another  class  of  miracles,  by  curing 
the  sick  sometimes  by  touch,  sometimes  by  command, 
sometimes  the  near,  sometimes  the  absent  and  far- 
distant.  More  marvelous  still  are  the  life-restoring 
miracles,  such  as  took  place  in  the  case  of  the  daughter 
of  the  chief  of  the  synagogue,  of  the  son  of  the  widow 
of  Nairn,  and  of  Lazarus,  the  brother  of  Martha  and 
Mary. 

But  the  crowning  proof  of  the  divinity  of  Chris- 
tianity is  to  be  found  in  Christ's  resurrection.  The  four 
Gospels  give  us  an  account  of  the  death  of  Christ,  and 
whilst  differing  in  many  little  circumstances,  which 
point    to   the  truthfulness  and  independence  of  the 


44  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

narratives,  they  do  not  contradict' each  other  in  one 
single  iota.  They  tell  us  of  the  various  incidents  which 
led  up  to  the  crucifixion  ;  the  hatred  of  the  Jewish 
priests  and  princes,  the  arrest  of  Christ,  the  various 
judicial  proceedings  against  Him,  His  condemnation, 
and  the  feeble  efforts  of  Pontius  Pilate  to  secure  His 
release.  They  tell  us  of  the  number  of  witnesses  at  His 
death.  There  were  John,  the  beloved  disciple,  the 
Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  the  other  holy  women,  the  Roman 
soldiers  in  charge  of  the  prisoners,  the  centurion  in 
command,  the  high-priests  and  scribes,  the  vast  con- 
course of  people  who  went  out  to  see  the  spectacle-, 
so  that  if  all  these  were  deceived  it  would  have  been  a 
miracle  more  miraculous  than  the  resurrection  itself. 

The  hatred  of  the  Jewish  officials  made  them  be 
cautious  not  to  deliver  up  the  body  of  Christ  until  they 
were  certain  that  He  was  dead — a  fact  which,  as  Renan 
confesses,  is  of  itself  sufficient  to  prove  the  actuality  of 
His  death.  The  piercing  of  His  side  by  the  Roman 
soldier,  from  which  blood  and  water  flowed,  is  proof  of 
Christ's  death  as  great  as  is  the  incredulity  of  Thomas 
of  His  resurrection.  Thomas  refused  to  believe  in  a 
risen  Saviour  until  he  had  seen  the  marks  of  the 
instruments  of  the  crucifixion.  The  unbelief  of  St. 
Thomas  is,  according  to  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  more 
profitable  unto  faith  than  the  faith  of  the  believing 
disciple.  Christ's  body  was  placed  in  a  tomb  hollowed 
out  of  a  rock,  the  door  was  sealed  with  the  public  seal, 
a  large  stone  was  placed  upon  it,  and  soldiers  kept 
guard  lest  the  disciples  should  come  and  steal  away  the 
body,  and  say  Christ  had  arisen.  In  addition  to  all 
these  precautions  there  is  the  amplest  testimony  of  His 
resurrection.     The  witnesses  are  Mary  Magdalene,  the 


MIRACLES.  45 

other  women  to  whom  Christ  appeared,  the  two  dis- 
ciples on  their  way  to  Emaus,  eleven  Apostles  and  more 
than  five  hundred  brethren.  They  saw  Him  again  and 
again,  at  home  and  abroad,  in  the  city  and  out  of  it ; 
they  talked  with  Him,  they  heard  the  sound  of  His 
voice,  they  touched  Him  on  invitation ;  so  that  they 
had  the  same  means  of  knowing  that  Christ  had  arisen 
as  they  had  of  the  existence  of  the  world  around  them. 
It  is  on  this  miracle — the  resurrection  of  Christ,  proved 
by  most  trustworthy  and  accumulative  evidence  from 
the  historical  books  of  the  New  Testament — that  we 
base  a  leading  proof  of  the  divinity  of  the  Christian 
religion.  Apart  altogether  from  the  question  of  inspira- 
tion and  from  the  Vatican  definition,  we  have  a  moral 
certainty  that  miracles  have  taken  place.  When  Christ 
said:  "Take  up  thy  bed  and  walk,"  and  when  He 
said,  "  Lazarus,  come  forth,"  He  showed  that  they  are 
not  the  result  of  strange  and  unknown  laws  of  nature. 
It  is  not  necessary,  in  order  to  know  whether  or  not 
something  is  miraculous,  to  know  well  the  laws  of 
nature,  to  be  versed  in  geology  and  astronomy,  to  talk 
glibly  of  the  tertiary  period,  to  be  able  to  find  the 
altitude  of  the  sun  at  noon,  to  speak  learnedly  of 
logarithms,  to  measure  the  velocity  of  sound,  and  such 
like  excellent  things  in  their  way. 

Every  man,  lettered  or  unlettered,  rude  or  cultured, 
the  woodman  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  or  the  courtier 
of  Whitehall,  will  tell  you  that  to  change  water  into 
wine,  and  to  raise  the  dead  to  life,  are  miracles. 

Even  yet  there  are  miracles  in  the  Church  of  God; 
even  yet  there  are  such  things  as  ecclesiastical  miracles. 
There  is  not  the  same  necessity  for  miracles  now  as  in 
the  days  of  the  Apostles,  yet  there  is  no  antecedent 


46  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

improbability  against  their  continuation.  Nations  are 
still  to  be  converted.  The  Jewish  religion  was  well 
established  during  the  lifetime  of  Moses,  nevertheless 
God  worked  miracles  afterwards  for  that  stiff-necked  and 
ungrateful  people.  A  certain  Catholic  writer  well  sums 
up  the  present  aspect  of  the  question  in  this  way  : 
"  The  more  profoundly  and  extensively  we  consider  the 
intimate  union  of  Christ  with  the  Church,  and  His 
unspeakable,  inconceivable  love  for  her,  manifested  in 
such  and  so  many  ways,  the  less  improbable  would  it 
appear,  antecedent  to  all  accounts  of  the  fact,  that 
He  would  work  miracles ;  in  one  place  to  quicken  and 
reward  the  piety  of  the  faithful ;  in  another  to  terrify 
or  persuade  them  to  repentance  ;  in  another  to  mark 
His  special  love  for  His  devoted  servants ;  in  another 
to  testify  to  the  sanctity  and  confirm  the  authority 
of  those  whom  He  destines  for  some  great  work  in 
the  -Church,  as  in  the  case  of  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin, 
or  St.  Ignatius,  or  St.  Philip  Neri,  or  St.  Theresa, 
or  St.  Alphonsus  Liguori ;  or  whom  He  destines  for  a 
consolation  to  the  Church,  or  for  an  example  of  some 
one  virtue,  or  of  all  virtues  in  the  heroic  degree,  as  in  the 
case  of  St.  Aloysius  or  St.  Mary  Magdalen  of  Pazzis." 
And  when  ecclesiastical  authority  speaks  we  are  bound 
to  show  our  filial  respect,  and  when  the  Church  pro- 
claims the  actuality  of  miracles,  as  she  does  in  the  case 
of  beatification  and  canonization,  it  would  be  pre- 
sumptuous on  our  part  to  withhold  our  assent. 

We  have  seen  that  Christ  proved  the  divinity  of 
Christianity  by  miracles.  Christianity  and  Catholicity 
are  convertible  terms.  Our  faith  is  the  same  to-day  as 
when  Christ  proved  its  truth  before  an  unsympathetic 
audience,  or  when   St.  Paul  spread   the  light  before 


MIRACLES.  47 

Athenian  heathens ;  for  we  are  told  that  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  the  Church,  and  Christ 
promised  to  remain  always  with  it.  And  if  supersti- 
tion and  imposture,  by  way  of  pretended  miracles, 
occasionally  accompanied  the  propagation  of  Christian- 
ity, though  they  might  obscure,  they  could  not  conceal 
the  true  work  of  God  in  His  Church,  of  which  work 
they  were  but  the  mockery. 


CHAPTER  V. 

FAITH  AND  REASON. 

THE  eleventh  chapter  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the 
Hebrews  is  for  Faith,  what  the  famous  thirteenth 
chapter  of  his  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians  is  for  Char- 
ity. In  it  the  Apostle  does  not  define,  but  rather 
describes,  Faith  when  he  says,  it  is  the  "  substance  of 
things  to  be  hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things  that 
appear  not."  By  Faith  we  mean  belief  on  the  author- 
ity of  another.  If  that  other  be  a  human  witness, 
then  the  Faith  is  humau;  if  divine,  then  the  Faith  is 
divine.  The  difference  between  them  is  well  pointed 
out  by  Cardinal  Newman  in  the  following  words : 
"  Divine  Faith  is  assenting  to  a  doctrine  as  true,  be- 
cause God  says  it  is  true,  Who  cannot  lie.  And  farther 
than  this;  since  God  says  it  is  true,  not  with  His 
own  voice,  but  by  the  voice  of  His  messengers,  it  is 
assenting  to  what  man  says,  not  simply  viewed  as  a 
man,  but  to  what  he  is  commissioned  to  declare,  as  a 
messenger,  prophet,  or  ambassador  from  God.  In  the 
ordinary  course  of  this  world  we  account  things  true, 
either  because  we  see  them,  or  we  can  perceive  that 
they  follow  and  are  deducible  from  what  we  do  see  ; 
that  is,  we  gain  truth  by  sight  or  by  reason,  not  by 
Faith.  You  will  say,  indeed,  that  we  accept  a  number 
of  things  which  we  can  not  prove  or  see,  on  the  word 

48 


FAITH  AND  REASON.  49 

of  others  ;  certainly  :  but  then  we  accept  what  they 
say  only  as  the  word  of  man ;  and  we  have  not 
commonly  that  absolute  and  unreserved  confidence  in 
them  which  nothing  can  shake.  We  know  that  man 
is  open  to  mistake,  and  we  are  always  glad  to  find  some 
confirmation  of  what  he  says  from  other  quarters,  in 
any  important  matter ;  or  we  receive  his  information 
with  negligence  and  unconcern,  as  something  of  little 
consequence  as  a  matter  of  opinion  ;  or,  if  we  act  upon 
it,  it  is  a  matter  of  prudence,  thinking  it  safest  and  best 
to  do  so.  We  take  his  word  for  what  it  is  worth,  and 
we  use  it  according  to  our  necessity,  or  its  probability. 
We  keep  the  decision  in  our  hands,  aad  reserve  the 
right  of  reopening  the  question  whenever  we  please. 
This  is  very  different  from  divine  Faith  ;  he  who  be- 
lieves that  God  is  true,  and  that  this  is  His  word  which 
He  has  committed  to  man,  has  no  doubt  at  all.  He  is 
as  certain  that  the  doctrine  taught  is  true,  as  that  God 
is  true  ;  and  he  is  certain,  because  God  is  true,  because 
God  has  spoken,  not  because  he  sees  its  truth,  or  can 
prove  its  truth.  That  is,  Faith  has  two  peculiarities  : 
it  is  most  certain,  decided,  positive,  and  immovable 
assent ;  and  it  gives  this  assent,  not  because  it  sees  with 
eye,  or  sees  with  reason,  but  because  it  receives  the 
tidings  from  one  that  comes  from  God." 

Faith,  as  it  exists  in  the  mind,  is  interior  ;  when 
manifested  by  words  or  signs,  it  is  called  exterior  Faith. 
And  this  division  is  very  different  from  implicit  and 
explicit  Faith.  For  it  is  implicit  when  we  believe,  in  a 
general  way,  truth  unknown  to  us  in  particular  ;  and  it 
is  explicit  when  the  truths  we  believe  are  clearly  known 
to  us.  Our  theologians  make  another  distinction.  They 
tell  us  that  Faith  is  living  when  it  is  animated  by  sancti- 


50  RATIONAL  RELIGION. 

fying  grace,  and  dead  when  no  such  grace  accompanies 
it.  To  this  distinction  St.  Paul  refers  when  he  speaks 
of  "  Faith  working  by  Charity,"  in  opposition  to  "  Faith 
without  works,  which  is  dead." 

Faith  bridges  the  gulf  between  the  world  of  time 
and  the  world  of  eternity  ;  and  if  I  were  asked,  What 
does  it  believe?  I  should  simply  say,  it  believes  the 
Word  of  God,  that  is,  His  whole  revelation.  This  rev- 
elation is  made  in  the  face  of  nature,  in  the  things 
created  by  which  His  existence  is  proved,  in  the  lights 
of  our  intellect  and  the  dictates  of  our  conscience. 
Thus  far  there  is  question  of  what  we  may  call  the 
natural  Word  of  God.  There  is  also  a  supernatural 
Word — the  Word  which  came  through  the  prophets, 
the  revelation  on  Pentecost,  that  which  we  received 
through  the  coming  of  God  the  Son  on  earth,  and  all 
that  He  taught,  the  things  of  which  He  spoke  when  He 
said,  "  I  have  many  things  to  say  to  you,  but  you  can 
not  hear  them  now."  Holy  Scripture  is  the  written 
Word  of  God  ;  the  unwritten  Word  is  the  living  Scrip- 
ture, which  is  stamped  upon  the  "world-wide  and 
lineal  intelligence  of  the  Church." 

The  wherefore,  or  motive,  for  our  belief,  is  the  veracity 
of  God.  The  Christian  revelation  has  been  established 
by  miracles,  and  the  historical  evidence  of  this  fact  is 
as  strong  and  as  accessible  as  the  grounds  for  belief  in 
the  existence  of  Julian  the  Apostate.  Knowing  this, 
we  know  it  is  God  who  speaks,  and  since  He  is  infinite 
wisdom,  He  can  not  be  deceived.  Hence  the  mind 
yields  a  firm  assent  to  revealed  doctrine,  on  the  author- 
ity of  God  Himself.  From  this,  it  is  clear  that  the 
motive  of  credibility  is  quite  different  from  the  motive 
of  Faith.  The  motive  of  credibility  is  the  reason  or  evi- 


FAITH   AND   REASON.  51 

dence  why  we  believe  a  doctrine  to  be  revealed  ;  the 
motive  of  Faith  is  the  reason  why  we  give  assent  to 
that  doctrine. 

A  truth  of  Faith  may  be  evident  in  itself,  and  the 
same  truth  may  be  known  by  reason  as  well  as  by  reve- 
lation. Such,  for  example,  is  the  existence  of  God. 
Nature  tells  us  of  a  Supreme  Being,  Scripture  tells  us 
of  a  living  God.  It  is  not  opinion,  and  does  not  admit 
of  doubt ;  for  the  proofs  of  a  Christian  revelation  are 
decisive,  and  the  evidences  of  an  infallible  authority  in 
the  Church  are  certain.  There  can  not  be  a  doctrine  of 
Divine  Faith,  unless  it  be  revealed,  and  as  circum- 
stances demand,  the  Church  proposes  for  our  acceptance* 
dogmas  of  Faith.  Thus  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  whilst 
always  a  matter  of  Divine  Faith,  was  not  formally  pro- 
posed to  the  faithful  until  the  Council  of  Nice,  held  in 
the  year  325  in  order  to  crush  the  Arian  heresy.  To* 
come  down  to  our  time,  the  doctrines  of  Papal  Infal- 
libility and  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  always 
belonged  to  Divine  Faith,  but  it  was  not  until  the 
Vatican  Council  that  the  former  was  solemnly  and 
formally  put  before  us,  whilst  the  latter  was  denned  by 
Pio  Nono  in  the  year  1854. 

All  Christians,  whilst  not  agreeing  as  to  the  nature  of 
Faith,  are  at  one  with  regard  to  its  necessity  for  salva- 
tion. They  teach  with  St.  Paul  that  "  without  Faith 
it  is  impossible  to  please  God  "  (Heb.  xi.  6);  and  with 
Christ,  '*  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  condemned " 
(Luke  xvi.  16).  Faith  is  a  grace,  and  grace  assists  but 
does  not  destroy  nature.  Without  the  gift  of  God  no 
one  can  have  Faith  ;  it  belongs  not  to  the  order  in  which 
we  are  born.  It  is  given  to  every  baptized  infant,  and,. 
as  Cardinal  Manning  points  out,  it  is  just  as  possible  for 


52  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

the  unconscious  infant  to  have  the  gift  of  Faith  as  it  is 
for  the  unconscious  infant  to  have  the  gift  of  reason. 
The  difficulty  to  believe  does  not  come  from  opposition 
between  faith  and  reason,  but  from  opposition  between 
man's  will  and  God's  grace. 

So  far  from  being  opposed  to  reason,  it  is  eminently 
reasonable.  We  believe  in  the  mysteries  of  nature, 
because  ample  testimony  convinces  us  that  they  exist. 
We  believe  in  the  mysteries  of  Faith,  because  still  more 
unexceptionable  evidence  proves  their  existence — the 
evidence  of  Christ  and  His  Church.  It  is  unreasonable 
to  assent  to  any  proposition  without  evidence.  We  are 
told  of  an  Indian  prince  who  never  saw  ice,  but  heard 
of  its  existence  on  trustworthy  authority.  He  would 
have  been  unreasonable  if  he  had  refused  to  believe.  We 
give  assent  to  truths  of  Faith,  not  on  human  authority, 
but  on  evidence  that  is  divine.  Reason  can  and  ought  to 
lead  us  up  to  the  very  porch  of  Faith.  Yet  Faith  does 
not  come  from  reason,  and  is  not  an  extension  of  it. 
Mechanical  power  may  aid  the  hearing  or  the  sight,  or 
the  other  senses,  as  the  telephone  aids  the  sense  of  hear- 
ing and  the  telescope  the  sense  of  sight,  still  the  same 
natural  faculties  remain.  And  so  with  reason,  however 
extended,  it  does  not  give  us  Faith.  When  we  speak 
of  reason  as  distinguished  from  Faith,  we  mean  the 
whole  collection  of  mental  faculties  and  the  principles 
discovered  by  them.  Each  has  its  own  province. 
There  are  limits  beyond  which  reason  can  not  go  in  the 
discovery  of  truth.  Time,  space,  causation,  matter, 
light,  sound,  electricity,  and  the  rest,  have  each  and  all 
their  mysteries.  It  is  not  wonderful,  then,  that  Bayle 
said  his  life  was  passed  in  the  midst  of  mysteries. 

There  is  another  means  of  communicating  truths  not 


FAITH   AND   REASON.  53 

discoverable  by  reason,  and  that  we  call  revelation. 
If  we  admit  the  existence  of  God,  we  can  not  deny  His 
power  of  communicating  truths  to  us.  Still  more,  the 
history  of  humanity  and  the  history  of  philosophy 
show  the  necessity  of  such  a  revelation;  for,  in  its 
absence  the  world  was  steeped  in  the  grossest  forms  of 
error  and  philosophy  was  unable  to  remedy  the  common 
ignorance  of  mankind. 

There  is  a  twofold  harmony  between  Faith  and  reason. 
One  is  of  a  negative  nature,  because  it  shows  there 
is  no  opposition  between  them  ;  the  other  is  positive, 
for  it  shows  that  revelation  opens  up  a  wide  field  of 
speculation  for  reason,  and  it  shows  how  the  latter  helps 
to  Faith.  There  is  no  opposition  to  reason  in  those  re- 
vealed truths  which  reason  itself  can  discern  ;  there  is 
no  opposition  in  these  truths  which  reason  can  not 
reach.  Reason  helps  to  Faith,  because  it  shows  that 
there  is  a  limit  to  its  own  powers ;  it  shows  that  revelation 
is  possible  and  even  necessary  ;  it  shows  and  examines 
the  evidences  of  revealed  truth  ;  and  having  accepted 
the  revelation,  it  can  show  the  reasonableness  of  the 
doctrine  itself. 

Reason  can  demonstrate  the  possibility  and  actual 
truth  of  certain  doctrines  which  we  can  not  comprehend. 
For  we  can  understand  a  truth  without  being  able  to 
comprehend  it,  that  is,  we  may  know  its  meaning  with- 
out being  able  to  account  for  it ;  without  being  able  to 
show  how  the  subject  and  attribute  can  be  united  or 
separated  as  stated  in  the  proposition.  Reason,  then,  is 
not  an  obstacle  but  an  aid  to  belief.  Between  the  ful- 
ness of  Faith  and  the  hollowness  of  unbelief  there  is 
an  inclined  plane  on  which,  if  people  struggle  not 
upward,  they  descend  rapidly.    Protestantism  is  no 


54  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

longer  one  of  the  competing  creeds.  The  battle  is  be- 
tween Catholicity  and  unbelief.  The  Via  Media  has 
been  tried  and  found  wanting.  "  I  came  to  the  conclu- 
sion," writes  Cardinal  Newman,  "that  there  is  no  medium 
in  true  philosophy  between  Atheism  and  Catholicity, 
and  that  a  perfectly  consistent  mind,  under  these  cir- 
cumstances in  which  it  finds  itself  here  below,  must  em- 
brace either  one  or  the  other."  And  the  grand  old 
historic  Church,  great  and  respected  (as  a  famous  Eng- 
lish essayist  points  out)  before  the  Saxon  had  set  foot  on 
Britain,  before  the  French  had  crossed  the  Rhine,  when 
Grecian  eloquence  still  flourished  in  Antioch,  when 
idols  were  still  worshiped  in  the  temple  of  Mecca,  will 
go  on  living  and  doing  good  in  spite  of  the  newest 
Reformation. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

FAITH  AND  PHYSICS. 

IN  the  foregoing  chapter  we  explained  what  Faith  is, 
its  motive,  its  object,  and  the  harmony  between  it 
and  reason ;  in  this  we  shall  confine  our  remarks  to 
Faith  and  Physics,  or  physical  science.  If  we  stop  to 
consider  that  apostasy  is  the  most  heinous  of  all  sins,  it 
is  worth  our  while  to  give  some  thought  to  one  of  its 
chiefest  causes.  Besides  what  may  be  called  the  moral 
causes  of  loss  of  Faith, —  such  as  indiscreet  marriage, 
bad  books,  errors  in  life, —  there  is  another  wide-spread 
cause,  and  it  is  misapprehension  of  the  scope  of  phys- 
ical science.  Mark  well,  the  cause  is  not  too  much 
knowledge,  but  too  little.  The  more  nebulous  the  intel- 
lect, the  more  likely  it  is  to  reject  Faith.  Ruskin's 
words  on  Darwin  throw  some  light  on  the  idea  we  wish 
to  impress.  The  great  art-critic  writes  :  "  Darwin  has 
a  mortal  fascination  for  all  vainly  curious  and  specula- 
tive persons,  and  has  collected  in  the  train  of  him  every 
impudent  imbecile  in  Europe,  like  a  dim  comet  wagging 
its  useless  tail  of  phosphorescent  light  across  the  stead- 
fast stars."  Biology  and  not  religion,  was  the  study  of  the 
learned  author  of  the  "  Origin  of  Species."  But,  like  the 
mischief  wrought  by  the  imitators  of  Carlyle  in  litera- 
ture, the  weak  followers  of  Darwin  work  sad  havoc 
through  the  instrumentality  of  theories  that  might  well 


Ob  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

be  Christianized.     And  so  with  the  other  branches  of 
physical  science. 

Physics  treats  of  the  science  of  nature,  or  of  natural 
objects,  comprehending  the  study  of  the  natural  world. 
Physics  deals  with  matter  only.  Its  province  is  very 
narrow.  It  deals  not  with  final  destiny,  nor  with 
essence,  or  first  cause,  but  takes  things  as  we  find  them. 
Science,  as  distinguished  from  art,  inquires  for  the  sake 
of  knowledge ;  art,  for  the  sake  of  production.  Art 
lays  down  certain  rules  ;  science  demonstrates  the  truth 
of  these  rules.  It  is  a  popular  error  to  restrict  the  word 
"scientist"  to  the  student  of  physical  science.  Theology, 
for  example,  treating  as  it  does  of  God  and  the  things 
which  belong  to  Him,  is  as  much  a  science  as  is  the 
study  of  natural  phenomena. 

.  Verily  we  need  a  new  Theology,  or  rather  a  Theology 
accommodated  to  meet  the  phases  of  the  age.  "We 
were  believers,"  writes  Jules  Simon,  "we  have  become 
sceptics,  to-morrow  we  shall  be  nihilists."  Scripture  is 
no  longer  of  much  use  in  controversy,  except  from  a 
historical  point  of  view.  We  do  not  require  it  as  a 
defense  against  Protestantism,  for  Protestantism  no 
longer  protests.  What  little  remains  of  it  is  a  fragment- 
ary Christianity,  a  "serviceable  break-water  against 
doctrinal  errors  more  fundamental  than  its  own,"  and 
therefore  it  is  idle  to  wage  a  Scriptural  warfare  against 
it  while  scepticism  in  all  its  forms  grows  more  ag- 
gressive. 

In  days  gone  by,  the  fiercest  form  of  attack  was  made 
upon  the  Church  in  the  name  of  Metaphysics  ;  now  it 
is  made  in  the  name  of  Physics.  If  we  face  the  ques- 
tion squarely  and  ask  ourselves,  are  the  revelations  of 
Christianity  really  at  variance  with  the  facts  of  Physics? 


FAITH   AND   PHYSICS.  57 

we  can  answer,  without  fear,  that  there  is  not  a  single 
case  where  a  certain  contradiction  has  been  discovered. 
Facts  of  physical  science  are  few,  hypotheses  many. 
We  ought  to  distinguish  what  is  certain  in  physical 
science  from  what  is  merely  probable,  and  we  should 
never  forget  that  the  many  wrecked  hypotheses  of  that 
branch  would  make  a  very  large  volume.  And  it  is  of 
moment  to  keep  this  before  the  mind's  eye,  because 
mere  theories  are"  so  often  set  forward  by  the  shallow 
and  flippant  as  facts,  and  we  are  asked,  with  a  nourish 
of  trumpets,  either  to  reconcile  them  with  the  certain 
truths  of  Christianity,  or  to  surrender  the  latter  at  dis- 
cretion. Even  Charles  Darwin  did  not  put  forward 
evolution  as  anything  more  than  a  theory,  but  cloudy 
imitators  have  done  the  rest,  and  have  rushed  in  where 
he,  with  all  his  wealth  of  learning,  feared  to  tread. 
Students  of  physical  science  have  been  at  work  against 
Christianity  for  a  long  time,  and  we  have  no  evidence 
that  they  have  found  for  a  certainty  any  flaw  in  it. 

In  the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  the  Gnostics,  with 
their  strange  mixture  of  oriental  theology  and  Greek 
philosophy,  and  some  doctrines  of  Christianity,  pro- 
fessed to  explain  everything  by  the  light  of  reason. 
Now  a  large  number  of  those  who  are  antagonistic  to 
Christ's  teaching  call  themselves  Agnostics,  professing 
to  know  nothing  about  the  supernatural. 

It  is  a  strange  principle  to  start  out  with,  that  Faith 
and  physical  science  are  in  opposition.  One  truth  may 
run  parallel  with  another,  or  even  on  a  higher  plane, 
but  can  never  be  opposed  to  it.  The  same  God  who 
gives  the  grace  of  Faith,  gives  light  for  the  discovery 
of  the  facts  of  physical  science.  Scientists  have  no 
right  to  ask  us  to  reconcile  mere  theories  with  Chris- 


58  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

tianity.  Hypotheses  are  but  hypothetical  facts,  if  we 
may  use  the  expression ;  and  if  we  take  away  these, 
there  will  be  very  few  scientific  facts  remaining.  All 
scientific  facts  we  admit  in  advance ;  we  promote 
research  and  its  results  please  us.  It  is  in  strict  con- 
formity with  Christianity  to  say  that  all  known  facts, 
and  all  facts  yet  undiscovered,  are  in  harmony  with  the 
Christian  religion.  Eevelation  is  the  basis  of  Faith, 
and  even  Renan  and  Strauss  admit,  when  urged,  that 
revelation  is  an  acknowledged  historical  fact.  Dogma 
may  destroy  many  hypotheses,  but  it  does  not  stand 
between  physics  and  facts. 

If  we  look  upon  science  by  reason  of  its  object,  it 
forms  into  two  great  divisions — supernatural  and  nat- 
ural. The  object  of  supernatural  science  is  God.  That 
part  of  natural  science  which  treats  of  intellectual  and 
moral  truths,  belongs  to  Metaphysics.  The  domain  of 
Physics  is  therefore  very  limited,  being  restricted  to 
purely  material  phenomena.  The  lowest*  in  the  order 
of  sciences  is  Physics  ;  the  highest,  Theology.  This 
needs  no  proof  beyond  the  consideration  of  the  object 
of  each  science.  Ask  yourself,  What  is  the  object  of 
Theology?  and  what  is  the  object  of  Physics?  and  the 
answers  show  how  immeasurably  superior  the  former 
is  to  the  latter.  Even  as  compared  with  Metaphysics, 
physical  science  stands  low.  Dealing  merely  with 
sensible  phenomena,  it  is  as  far  below  Metaphysics  as 
sight  is  below  intelligence.  We  are  not  finding  fault ; 
we  are  merely  pointing  out  the  scope  of  physical  science. 
To  our  mind  it  is  as  reasonable  to  find  fault  with  an 
ass  for  not  being  a  horse,  as  to  find  fault  with  physical 
science  because  it  can  not  examine  and  solve,  according 
to  its  own  methods,  questions  of  Metaphysics  and  The- 


FAITH   AND   FHYSICS.  59 

ology.  But  we  do  take  it  to  be  an  evidence  of  intellect- 
ual poverty,  when  we  find  physicists  undertaking  to 
solve,  either  in  a  negative  or  a  positive  way,  by  the 
methods  and  principles  of  physical  science,  questions 
that  belong  entirely  to  the  region  of  Metaphysics  or  of 
Theology. 

For  the  sake  of  clearness,  we  must  distinguish 
between  two  schools,  the  positivist  and  the  materialistic. 
The  first  says  that  questions  of  final  cause  and  first 
cause,  and  origin  and  substance,  are  entirely  unknow- 
able to  us.  It  assigns  as  a  reason  that  these  are  outside 
the  pale  of  observation  by  the  senses.  We  answer,  If 
they  present  no  phenomena  for  the  senses,  then  you  are 
not  justified  in  pronouncing  them  unknowable.  All 
you  can  justly  say,  is  that  they  are  unknowable  by  the 
principles  of  your  science,  and  as  your  science  is  very 
limited,  perhaps  they  are  knowable  by  the  principles  of 
higher  sciences.  Even  if  they  are  outside  the  pale  of 
observation  by  the  senses,  they  are  not  therefore  outside 
the  pale  of  perception  by  our  reason.  The  materialistic 
school  of  science  undertakes  to  decide  all  questions, 
whether  physical,  metaphysical,  or  religious.  This  is 
monstrous.  Why  should  they  attempt  to  do  so,  if 
questions  of  Metaphysics  and  Theology  be  not  regu- 
lated by  a  code  of  laws  founded  on  material  phenomena  ? 

Even  in  matters  outside  the  province  of  physical 
science,  the  physicists  will  accept  no  proofs  and  no 
methods  but  their  own.  Here  they  lay  themselves 
open  to  the  charge  of  holding  a  fragmentary  teaching 
of  a  half-educated  school.  "  It  is  no  taunt,"  writes  Mr. 
Mallock, "  it  is  simply  the  statement  of  a  biological 
fact,  to  say  that  a  large  number  of  physicists  have  been 
so  imperfectly  educated  in  the  very  rudiments  of  phi- 


60  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

losophy  as  hardly  to  realize  what  there  is  to  be  accounted 
for.  They  accept  their  external  world  as  a  savage  does, 
or  as  an  English  agricultural  laborer  does."  Thus  it  is 
lack  of  education  and  want  of  knowledge  which  cause 
this  apparent  collision  of  Faith  and  Physics. 

The  logic  of  scientific  and  sociological  moralists  re- 
jects dogmas  of  Faith  as  unnecessary,  if  not  hostile,  to 
the  highest  life.  Whilst  we  know  that  the  earth  is  but 
an  atom  in  the  awful  vastness  of  the  universe,  yet  their 
appeal  is  rather  to  the  imagination  than  to  reason. 
Let  me  again  quote  that  most  fascinating  of  modern 
philosophers — W.  H.  Mallock — whose  words  show  there 
is  nothing  shocking  to  the  scientific  imagination  in  all 
those  questions  of  Faith  wound  up  in  the  teaching 
that  the  earth  is  the  abode  of  a  special  race  ennobled  by 
a  Redeemer  :  "  The  selection  of  this  one  small  planet 
as  the  abode  of  a  race  special  and  so  preeminent  as  the 
Incarnation  and  Redemption  would  argue  man  to  be, 
the  selection  of  this  earth,  in  fact,  as  the  spiritual  centre 
of  all  things,  is  an  idea  which,  properly  considered,  is 
far  less  shocking  to  the  scientific  imagination  than  it 
seems  to  be.  It  is  indeed  strictly  in  accordance  with 
the  doctrines  of  evolution  and  natural  selection.  Every- 
thing in  the  world  around  us  that  comes  to  maturity  is 
produced  by  a  process  of  what  seems  to  be  a  boundless 
waste.  What  innumerable  ages  have  gone  to  the  mak- 
ing of  man  !  What  innumerable  ova  are  wasted  for  any 
one  thing  that  lives  !  In  the  same  way,  what  myriads 
and  myriads  of  stars  may  be  wasted  and  lifeless,  whilst 
this  one  has  received  the  God  of  Gods  upon  it !  *  *  * 
I  only  wish  to  affirm  that  when  the  time  for  the  struggle 
comes  the  imagination  that  affirms  may  be  more  than  a 
match  for  the  imagination  that  denies." 


FAITH    AND   PHYSICS.  61 

Certain  leaders  of  modern  thought  try  to  impress 
upon  us  that  the  study  of  nature,  or  physical  science, 
leads  away  from  God.     Common  sense  and  a  little  phi- 
losophy teach,  with  St.  Paul,  that  we  learn  of  God  from 
His  works,  that  we  look  "  from  nature  up  to  nature's 
God."    The  Psalmist  taught  the  same  :  "The  heavens 
show  forth  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  firmament  declareth 
the  work  of  His  hands  "  (Ps.  xviii.  2).     The  words  of 
the  Vatican  Council,  as  explaining  the  apparent  conflict 
between  Faith  and  Physical  science,  have  almost  become 
commonplace  in  the  writings  of  churchmen:    "There 
never  can  be  any  real  discrepancy  between  reason  and 
Faith,  since  the  same  God  who  reveals  mysteries  has 
bestowed  the  light  of  reason  on  the  human  mind  ;  and 
God  can  not  deny  Himself,  nor  can  truth  ever  contra- 
dict truth.     The  false  appearance  of  such  a  contradic- 
tion is  mainly  due  either  to  dogmas  of  Faith  not  having 
been  clearly  understood  and  expounded  according  to 
the  mind  of  the  Church,  or  to  the  inventions  of  opinion 
having  been  taken  for  the  verdict  of  reason."    We 
should  not  forget  that  there  is  a  natural  and  a  super- 
natural revelation  of  the  mind  of  God.    God  has  form- 
ally spoken  to  man.    Christianity  teaches  that  "  God, 
at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners,  spoke  in  times 
past  to  the  Fathers  by  the  Prophets,  last  of  all;  in  these 
days  hath  spoken  to  us  by  His  Son."    Theology,  or  the 
highest  science,  treats  of  this  manifestation  of  the  Al- 
mighty.   God  also  reveals  Himself  by  the  visible  powers 
of  nature.     Physical  science  deals  with  this  latter.     We 
may  compare  science  and  religion  to  the  sisters  Martha 
and  Mary.     They  are  daughters  of  the  same  Father. 
They  minister  to  the  same  Lord,  but  in  a  different  way. 
Science,  like  Martha,  is  busy   about  material  things. 


62  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

Religion,  like  Mary,  is  kneeling  at  the  feet  of  her  Lord. 

It  is  strange  that  such  men  as  are  represented  by 
Herbert  Spencer,  should  foster  the  impression  that  Chris- 
tianity is  hostile  to  physical  science;  and,  that  physicists 
as  such,  continually  run  the  risk  of  having  an  ecclesias- 
tical ukase  directed  against  them.  They  tell  us  our  arti- 
cles of  Faith  are  hindrances  upon  scientific  research. 
We  answer :  knowledge  of  any  kind  defines  truth,  and 
therefore  limits  inquiry.  Let  us  illustrate  our  mean- 
ing. Suppose  we  learn  on  unexceptionable  authority 
that  the  bison  is  not  to  be  found  in  any  State  east  of  the 
Mississippi,  we  should  act  unwisely  were  we  to  search 
Illinois,  or  Ohio,  or  New  York  for  that  animal. 

They  appeal  with  triumphant  scorn  to  the  case  of 
Galileo.  Nicholas  Cosa,  a  humble  but  learned  priest, 
in  a  work  on  Astronomy,  written  well-nigh  two  hundred 
years  before  Galileo,  taught  the  heliocentric  system. 
The  representatives  of  Christianity  did  not  condemn 
him,  but  Pope  Nicholas  the  Fifth  gave  him  a  Cardinal's 
hat  by  way  of  compliment.  Copernicus,  a  professor  in 
the  Pope's  University,  taught  the  same  thing  and 
enraptured  an  audience  of  two  thousand  students  by 
his  lectures  on  the  new  astronomical  theory.  Rome 
also  favored  him,  and  on  his  retirement  he  received  a 
life  pension.  But  they  kept  religion  apart  from  their 
philosophical  speculations.  Galileo  dragged  in  the 
Scriptures  most  incontinently.  The  purpose  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  is  not  to  teach  astronomy ;  and  if 
here  and  there  we  find  astronomical  references  which 
are  not  scientifically  correct,  we  must  remember  that 
the  inspired  writer  was  only  making  use  of  popular 
language  to  teach  a  lesson,  in  the  same  way  as  we  speak 
of  sunrise  and  sunset,  though,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 


FAITH   AND  PHYSICS.  63 

sun  neither  rises  nor  sets.  Galileo's  theory  could  not 
be  proved  to  a  certainty  until  the  velocity  of  light  and 
its  aberrations,  and  the  laws  of  gravitation  were  estab- 
lished. 

Nor  were  Catholic  prelates  the  only  ones  who 
resented  this  misuse  of  the  Scriptures,  and  were  in 
apparent  opposition  to  the  progress  of  physical  science. 
Thirty  years  before  Galileo  got  into  trouble,  the  astron- 
omer Kepler  was  condemned  by  the  Protestant  theo- 
logical faculty  of  Tubingen.  After  much  vexatious 
treatment,  he,  staunch  Protestant  to  the  last,  fled  to 
Jesuits  of  Gratez  and  Ingoldstadt  for  protection. 
What  is  the  use  of  saying  that  the  Church,  without 
knowing  it,  taught  officially  or  ex  cathedra  in  the  Galileo 
case?  One  might  as  well  say  a  man  can  commit  a 
formal  sin  without  knowing  it.  The  Galileo  case  im- 
presses this  upon  us,  that  theologians  should  not  disre- 
gard the  scientific  teaching  of  their  age.  Let  us  sup- 
pose that  the  Roman  Congregation  which  condemned 
Galileo  was  at  fault,  what  follows?  No  harm,  that  we 
know  of,  befalls  the  Church  or  any  of  her  doctrines. 
Catholics  never  said  that  Roman  Congregations  were 
infallible.  The  fact  of  a  mistake  having  been  made 
in  Galileo's  case,  neither  retards  nor  accelerates  the 
progress  of  science,  but  it  does  emphasize  the  truth 
that  infallibility  rests  not  with  sacred  congregations, 
but  with  the  Church  and  with  the  Pope,  in  matters  of 
faith  and  morals,  when  teaching  ex  cathedra. 

The  very  mission  of  the  Church  requires  the  promo- 
tion of  science.  Her  mission  is  to  the  scientist  as  well 
as  to  the  savage.  Her  missionaries  must  learn  the 
technical  terminology  of  the  former  as  well  as  the  rude 
and  undeveloped  language  of  the  latter. 


64  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

The  grand  and  simple  laws  of  nature  have  no  terrors 
for  Christianity.  The  most  honored  names  in  every 
department  of  physical  science  are  those  of  Catholics. 
It  was  a  French  ecclesiastic,  Picard,  who  made  the  first 
accurate  measurement  of  a  degree  of  the  meridian,  and 
thus  enabled  Newton  to  establish  the  principle  of  uni- 
versal gravitation  ;  Peter  Angelo  Secchi,  an  Italian 
Jesuit,  was  the  greatest  student  of  the  sun  who  ever 
lived,  and  has  written  the  best  work  upon  it ;  Pope 
Gregory  the  Thirteenth  settled  the  hitherto  all-confus- 
ing question  of  chronology  ;  Balboa,  a  Spanish  Catholic, 
enriched  geography  by  being  the  first  to  catch  sight  of 
the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  Magellan,  a  Portuguese  Catholic, 
still  further  enlarged  that  science  by  being  the  first  to 
sail  around  the  earth.  To  Catholics  we  are  indebted 
for  our  knowledge  of  the  three  laws  of  motion,  the 
basis  of  modern  mechanical  science.  A  Venetian  friar, 
Luca  Borgo,  wrote  the  first  European  work  on  algebra  ; 
Pascal,  a  Catholic,  aided  Leibnitz  in  the  invention  of 
the  differential  calculus  ;  and  one  of  the  greatest  names 
in  optics  is  Augustin  Jean  Fresnel.  Fizeau,  a  Catholic, 
first  measured  the  velocity  of  light,  and  the  experi- 
ments of  Galvani,  another  Catholic,  were  the  beginning 
of  dynamic  electricity.  Lavoisier  was  the  founder  of 
modern  chemistry,  and  the  most  distinguished  name 
in  mineralogy  is  that  of  Rene  Just  Haug.  Even  in 
geology,  that  newest  branch  of  physical  science,  which 
testifies  to  the  truth  of  the  sacred  record  of  Genesis,  we 
find  such  Catholics  as  Da  Vinci,  Friscatores,  and  the 
Danish  bishop,  Nicholaus  Stans,  holding  prominent 
places. 

The  admission  of  the  supernatural  will  go  a  great 
way  towards  reconciling  religion  and  science.     If  we 


FAITH   AND   PHYSICS.  65 

bear  in  mind  that  physical  science  is  not  the  only 
science,  that  its  scope  is  comparatively  limited,  that  its 
methods  and  principles  are  not  intended  for  questions 
of  Theology  and  Metaphysics  ;  if  we  remember  what 
physical  science  owes  to  Catholic  physicists  ;  if  we  recall 
to  mind  the  history  of  the  Church  in  relation  to  this 
science,  then  Faith  and  Physics  are  easily  harmonized. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

FAITH  AND  EVOLUTION. 

EVOLUTION  still  continues  to  be  the  watchword  of 
advanced  scholarship.  It  is  not  our  purpose  to 
offer  anything  new  on  this  subject,  but  rather  to  give,  in 
a  short  and  easy  form,  the  teaching  of  some  writers.  We 
shall  treat  the  question  principally  in  reference  to  the 
creation  of  man.  Though  all  do  not  agree  as  to  what 
Evolution  is,  yet  there  is  sufficient  agreement  to  enable 
us  to  trace  its  general  outlines.  It  implies  a  common 
ancestry. .  All  living  things,  it  tells  us,  are  united  in 
some  way  by  ties  of  relationship.  Charles  Darwin 
points  out  a  strong  resemblance  between  certain  forms 
of  animal  and  vegetable  life.  He  says  that  life  com- 
menced in  some  simplest  forms,  and  gradually  became 
more  complex  till  man  appeared.  It  would  seem  that 
the  parable  of  the  mustard-seed  is  the  parable  of  crea- 
tion, and  that  man's  body  is  a  resume  of  the  lower 
beings.  According  to  that  most  painstaking  scientist, 
natural  selection,  or  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  directs 
and  in  some  way  controls  this  Evolution.  The  phrase, 
natural  selection,  is  taken  in  contradistinction  to  arti- 
ficial selection.  By  artificial  selection  man  produces 
the  dog  from  the  wolf  and  the  white  rose  from  the  red. 
Natural  selection  is  the  power  which  preserves  species 
against  adverse  influences  by  utilizing  the  individual 


FAITH   AND   EVOLUTION.  67 

peculiarities  favorable  to  their  existence,  and  by  cut- 
ting off  all  such  peculiarities  as  are  not  favorable.  In 
justice  to  the  great  scientist,  he  nowhere  maintains  that 
he  has  completely  proved  his  theories. 

Though  Huxley  and  Spencer  are  not  quite  satisfied 
with  Darwin's  Evolution,  yet  the  lesser  lights  accept  it 
in  all  its  simple  grandeur.  Whilst  Kant,  Laplace,  and 
Erasmus  Darwin  were  the  real  founders  of  modern  Evo- 
lution, Charles  Darwin  is  beyond  doubt  its  high-priest. 

Professor  Mivart  says,  Evolution  depends  on  some 
unknown  law.  This  acts  only  where  there  are  condi- 
tions favorable  to  Evolution.  Then  changes  are  caused 
so  great  as  to  distinguish  species  from  species.  Thus 
man's  body  was  made. 

Some  find  in  Evolution  an  argument  for  Theism  ; 
others,  with  Frederick  Harrison,  discover  in  it  a  reason 
for  the  grossest  Materialism.  Among  all  Evolutionists 
there  is  this  in  common — an  opposition  to  the  popular 
belief  as  regards  the  creation.  Herbert  Spencer  satir- 
izes the  popular  idea,  and  calls  belief  in  a  special  crea- 
tion a  carpenter-like  theory. 

Every  Christian  must  hold  that  God  created  man. 
Let  us  take  the  description  of  the  creation  as  given  in 
Genesis.  "And  He  said  :  Let  us  make  man  to  our 
image  and  likeness  ;  and  let  him  have  dominion  over 
the  fishes  of  the  sea,  and  the  fowls  of  the  air,  and  the 
beasts,  and  the  whole  earth,  and  every  creeping  creature 
that  moveth  upon  the  earth.  And  God  created  man 
to  His  own  image ;  to  the  image  of  God  He  created 
him  :  male  and  female  He  created  them  "  (i.  26,  27). 
"And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  slime  of  the 
earth ;  and  breathed  into  his  face  the  breath  of  life, 
and  man  became  a  living  soul "  (ii.  7). 


68  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

The  question  therefore  for  us  is,  how  did  God  make 
man  ?  God  formed  man's  body  from  dust  or  slime,  and 
breathed  into  that  body  a  living  soul.  Evolution  can 
have  no  place  in  reference  to  the  soul.  The  evolution 
of  mind  from  matter  is  eminently  Atheistic.  That  the 
soul  of  Adam  was  specially  created  is  a  dogma  of  Catholic 
Faith.  It  is  also  of  Faith  that  the  origin  of  the  human 
soul  in  each  individual  of  Adam's  posterity  is  not  an 
evolution  of  organic  or  of  inorganic  forms  of  existence. 
Moreover,  though  not  formally  defined,  yet  the  every- 
day teaching  of  the  Church  seems  to  make  it  of  Faith, 
that  one  soul  can  not  produce  another.  Hence,  we  say 
each  individual  receives  his  soul  immediately  from  God 
as  Adam  did.  Everyone  agrees  that  there  is  no  doctrinal 
difficulty  in  admitting  Evolution  in  reference  to  all 
organisms  lower  than  man.  This,  however,  does  not 
imply  that  matter  has  in  itself  all  the  potentiality  of  ter- 
restrial life,  and  goes  on  in  its  own  development  alone 
and  by  its  own  energy.  The  subject,  then,  is  reduced  to 
the  manner  in  which  God  created  man's  body.  Some 
few  contemplate  the  possibility  of  angelic  ministration 
in  the  formation  of  man,  but  this  does  not  materially 
affect  the  question. 

There  are  three  things  which  show  forth  in  a  marked 
manner  the  supreme  dominion  of  the  Creator,  and  the 
entire  dependence  of  the  created.  They  are  :  first,  crea- 
tion, or  the  production  of  a  thing  from  nothing  ;  second, 
conservation,  or  the  keeping  in  existence  of  the  thing 
created  ;  third,  cooperation  (concursus),or  the  influence 
of  the  Creator  on  the  creature  in  order  that  the  latter 
may  act.  This  cooperation  is  necessary  for  all  actions. 
Besides  the  general  cooperation  of  God,  our  question 
as  to  the  manner  in  which  He  made  man  implies  an 
additional  act. 


FAITH   AND  EVOLUTION.  69 

Our  query  may  be  put  in  another  way,  which  may 
make  it  yet  more  clear.  No  evolutionary  process  can 
account  for  man's  intellect ;  no  evolutionary  process 
can  account  for  even  the  beginnings  of  morality  which 
are  to  be  found  in  all,  even  in  the  most  undignified 
savage.  These  two  thoughts  in  themselves  are  enough 
to  prevent  our  acceptance  of  the  Darwinian  theory  in 
its  entirety.  Leaving  the  question  of  the  human  soul 
as  settled  ;  passing  over  that  of  intellect  and  morality  ; 
may  we  not  hold  that  the  body  was  not  formed  im- 
mediately by  God,  and  that  it  originated  in  a  lower 
species?  If  we  maintain  that  the  formation  of  man's 
body  was  not  immediate,  but  rather  the  result  of  a  long 
and  slow  process,  then  the  texts  of  Genesis,  quoted 
above,  must  be  taken  in  a  sense  other  than  literal. 
Nor  does  this  present  an  insuperable  difficulty,  because, 
as  every  student  of  the  inspired  word  knows,  the 
Scriptures  may  be  taken  in  many  senses.  When  we 
read  that  God  breathed  into  man's  face  the  breath  of  life, 
it  is  evident  that  the  words  are  not  to  be  accepted  in 
the  strictest  sense.  Why,  then,  should  we  be  bound  to 
interpret  the  first  half  of  the  same  text  in  its  narrowest 
sense  ?  There  is  no  reason  why  we  should,  to  be  found 
in  the  text,  nor  in  the  context,  nor  in  any  other  part  of 
the  Sacred  Scriptures.  If  reason  there  be,  it  must  be 
from  some  other  source.  In  addition  to  the  words  of 
Genesis,  other  texts  are  also  quoted,  such  as  from  Job  : 
11  Thy  hands  have  made  me,  and  fashioned  me  wholly 
round  about.  Remember,  I  beseech  Thee,  that  thou 
hast  made  me  as  the  clay  "  (i.  8,  9).  It  is  a  common 
usage  of  speech  to  attribute  the  results  of  dependent 
and  proximate  causes  to  the  principal  one.  Thus  we 
often  hear  the  phrase,  "  I  built  that  house,"  used  by 


70  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

the  man  who  merely  employed  others  to  do  the  work. 
So  also  the  results  of  the  actions  of  secondary  causes 
are  attributed  by  Sacred  Scripture  to  the  immediate 
action  of  God. 

Professor  Mivart,  in  his  "  Lessons  from  Nature,"  says 
that  the  strictest  ultramontane  is  at  liberty  to  hold  the 
doctrine  of  Evolution.  The  learned  doctor  is  speaking 
of  what  is  merely  animal  in  the  nature  of  man.  And 
the  origin  of  man  from  a  lower  animal  form,  is,  in 
reality,  a  higher  origin  than  from  dust  or  slime.  Evolu- 
tion as  a  process  pervades  all  nature.  We  find  it  in 
language  ;  we  find  it  in  the  powers  of  the  mind  ;  we  find 
it  in  the  products  of  every  season  and  clime.  Human 
life  is  at  present  evolved,  for  it  passes  through  many 
stages.  It  does  not,  therefore,  seem  so  utterly  repug- 
nant that  Adam's  body  should  have  been  formed  in 
some  such  similar  way. 

It  is  the  soul  which  ennobles  man,  and  makes  him 
lord  of  creation.  If  we  state  an  evident  fact,  the  simi- 
larity to  be  found  between  man's  body  and  that  of 
some  animals,  we  do  not  lower  him  from  his  high 
place,  because  the  soul,  the  distinguishing  element, 
remains  untouched.  Every  creature  begins  life  under 
a  simpler  and  more  different  form  from  that  which  it 
afterwards  attains.  The  oak  from  the  acorn,  the  cater- 
pillar from  the  egg,  are  cases  in  point.  Why  should 
the  material  part  of  man  be  an  exception? 

Nor  does  there  seem  to  be  any  decisive  reason  in 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers  against  holding  Evolution 
in  reference  to  Adam's  body,  at  least,  as  a  possible 
hypothesis.  St.  Augustine,  in  his  work  on  Genesis, 
whilst  warning  us  against  loquacious  philosophy  on 
the  one  hand,  and  superstitious  timidity  on  the  other, 


FAITH   AND  EVOLUTION.  71 

recommends  the  greatest  latitude  in  the  interpretation 
of  obscure  passages  of  Holy  Writ.  Catholics  are  well 
aware  of  the  Tridentine  teaching  not  to  interpret  the 
Scriptures  contrary  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Fathers.  In  view  of  the  present  subject,  it  is  well  to 
bear  in  mind  what  is  meant  by  Patristic  unanimity  of 
consent,  and  what  the  object  of  that  consent  must  be  in 
order  to  be  decisive.  Whilst  some  quote  St.  Augustine 
as  holding  Evolution  to  be  in  harmony  with  Christian 
doctrines,  it  is  certain  that  the  whole  school  of  St.  Basil, 
which  is  nearly  the  entire  traditio  patrum,  teach  the 
immediate  formation  of  man's  body  by  God.  We  fear, 
however,  the  great  Doctor  of  Grace  was  not  a  prophet 
of  the  future  possibilities  of  science,  and  the  theologians 
of  the  school  of  St.  Basil,  whilst  they  meant  to  exclude 
Gnostic  and  Manichean  errors  and  other  false  theories 
of  the  time  regarding  matter  in  general  and  man's 
body  in  particular,  could  hardly  be  expected  to  be  well 
versed  in  a  question  which  has  taken  shape  in  com- 
paratively modern  times.  An  example  may  throw 
some  light  on  the  meaning  of  the  unanimous  consent 
of  the  Fathers.  All  of  them  of  any  note  except  St. 
Augustine  hold  the  six  days  of  creation  to  be  ordinary 
ones.  Nevertheless  there  is  no  obligation  from  Faith 
binding  us  to  believe  that  the  days  of  creation  were 
twenty-four  hours  long,  rather  than  indefinite  periods 
of  time.  Perhaps,  then,  the  single  dissentient  voice 
of  the  great  Latin  Father  is  able  to  destroy  the  una- 
nimity of  consent.  Again,  it  is  suggested  that  we  may 
distinguish  between  material  and  formal  consent.  The 
material,  "  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers,"  is  when 
they  merely  say  the  same  thing  ;  the  formal,  when  they 
use  words  to  the  effect  that  such  is  the  sense,  and  such 


72  RATIONAL  RELIGION. 

alone,  in  which  a  certain  passage  may  be  taten.  With 
this  distinction  before  our  mind,  even  if  the  school  of 
St.  Basil  represented  the  sense  of  the  Church,  may  we 
not  say  that  the  unanimity  was  simply  material,  and 
therefore  no  more  obligatory  than  the  unanimous  con- 
sent regarding  the  six  days  of  creation  ?  It  must  be 
borne  in  mind  throughout,  that  we  are  speaking  of 
man's  body,  not  of  man.  For  man  did  not  exist  until 
the  human  soul  was  infused  into  the  pre-existing  being, 
whatever  that  being  was,  and  whenever  this  action  took 
place.  If  we  suppose,  then,  the  creation  of  man's  body 
to  be  a  purely  scientific  question,  and  not  essentially 
connected  with  Faith  and  morals,  we  are  within  our 
right  in  saying  that  it  is  not  for  a  certainty  one  of 
these  subjects  on  which  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Fathers  is  decisive.  The  authority  of  the  Fathers 
extends  only  to  matters  of"  Faith  and  morals,  and 
truths  essentially  connected  with  them.  Hence  their 
purely  scientific  views  have  no  greater  value  than  the 
scientific  principles  on  which  they  depend.  Evidence 
and  not  authority  is  the  direct  criterion  of  scientific 
truth. 

We  come  now  to  the  teaching  of  our  theologians. 
Professor  Mivart  is  at  fault  in  calling  the  consensus  of 
our  theologians  a  bug-bear  to  timid  Catholics.  A  con- 
tinuous consensus  of  Catholic  teaching  is,  as  the  Vatican 
Council  points  out,  obligatory  on  Catholics.  It  is  rash 
to  maintain  without  at  least  a  probable  foundation,  an 
opinion  which  is  opposed  to  the  commonly  received 
teaching  of  the  theologians.  Bat  theologians  may 
teach  in  two  ways.  They  may  teach  something  as  their 
own  opinion,  or  they  may  teach  it  as  a  revealed  truth. 
If  in  the  latter  way,  then,  no  doubt,  the  continuous  con- 


FAITH   AND   EVOLUTION.  73 

sensus  of  the  theologians  should  have  some  binding  force 
on  Catholics.  But  such  does  not  appear  to  be  the  case,  if 
proposed  in  the  former  way.  Although  Dr.  Bernard 
Schafer,  Dr.  Carl  Guettler,  Padre  Secchi,  and  other 
modern  theologians,  hold  the  Evolutionary  process  in 
reference  to  Adam's  body  at  least  as  a  possible  hypoth- 
esis, and  Father  Harper,  with  more  courage,  states, 
that  the  principle  of  natural  Evolution  is  in  strict 
accordance  with  the  teaching  of  St.  Thomas  and  the 
Fathers  of  the  Church,  yet  the  majority  of  theologians 
taught  and  teach  the  immediate  creation  of  Adam's 
body.  But  it  is  by  no  means  clear  whether  they  taught 
this  merely  as  their  own  opinion,  or  whether  they 
taught  it  as  a  revealed  truth  binding  on  the  consciences 
of  the  faithful.  Many  of  the  older  theologians  could 
not  have  taught  it  as  opposed  to  Evolution,  because 
they  held  the  six  days  of  creation  to  be  of  the  ordinary 
length,  and  this  of  course  excluded  from  their  minds 
all  idea  of  a  slow  process  of  formation.  Perhaps,  after 
all,  as  far  as  Faith  and  ethical  results  are  concerned, 
this  whole  question  is  not  of  practical  consequence. 

When  we  say  there  is  no  conflict  between  Evolution 
and  Faith  we  speak  of  course  of  Theistic  Evolution, 
Atheistic  being  entirely  outside  our  question.  The  Evo- 
lution system  seems  to  be  the  more  intelligent  one.  It 
does  not  diminish  our  idea  of  God's  greatness ;  it 
increases  our  idea  of  His  Power.  This  is  clear,  because 
the  theory  supposes  that  God  made  a  world  with  all  the 
germs  for  Evolution  contained  in  it.  The  last  sentence 
of  Charles  Darwin's  work,  the  "  Origin  of  Species,"  is 
worth  reproducing  in  this  connection.  "  There  is  grand- 
eur," he  writes,  "in  this  view  of  life  with  its  several 
powers,  having  been  originally  breathed  by  the  Creator 


74  RATIONAL  RELIGION. 

into  a  few  forms  or  into  one  ;  and  that,  while  this  planet 
has  gone  cycling  on  according  to  the  fixed  law  of 
gravity,  from  so  simple  a  beginning  endless  forms  most 
beautiful  and  most  wonderful  have  been  and  are  be- 
ing evolved."  Indeed,  the  process  of  Evolution,  as  we 
understand  it  in  its  christianized  form,  seems  to  be 
impossible  unless  the  existence  of  God  be  granted. 
Evolution  began  in  time  or  it  is  eternal.  If  it  be- 
gan in  time,  how  did  it  originate?  We  may  say, 
motion  caused  it.  Without  motion  an  egg  does  not 
become  a  bird,  a  chrysalis  does  not  develop  into  a  but- 
terfly, a  leaf  does  not  tremble,  an  apple  does  not  fall, 
and  so  of  all  the  rest.  But  whence  that  motion  ?  Now, 
motion  can  not  produce  it,  no  more  than  non-exist- 
ence can  produce  existence.  It  must  have  some  cause 
outside  itself,  and  that  cause  or  force  we  call  God.  Nor 
can  it  be  said  that  Evolution  is  eternal.  We  all  know 
that  the  world  has  gone  on  progressing  and  has  attained 
a  certain  limited  perfection.  Yet  this  perfection  is  so 
curtailed  that  it  leaves  much  to  be  desired.  If  Evolu- 
tion were  eternal  it  would  follow  that  eternity  was  not 
long  enough  ;  in  other  words,  that  a  time  greater  than 
eternity  were  necessary  to  bring  about  a  certain  finite 
and  qualified  perfection.    * 

When  the  dust  and  smoke  of  this  great  intellectual 
battle  will  have  cleared  away,  it  may  be  found  that 
nature  leads  up  to  nature's  God,  that  the  formation 
of  Eve  from  Adam's  rib  is  not  necessarily  destructive 
of  the  Evolution  theory,  but  may  be  accepted  as  a 
figure  of  speech — a  way  of  insisting  on  the  intimacy  of 
the  marriage  tie — that,  as  Aristotle's  philosophy  was  not 
in  deadly  antagonism  to  Christianity,  and  Genesis  and 
Geology  not  irreconcilable,  so,  time  may  show  Faith 


FAITH   AND   EVOLUTION.  75 

and  Evolution  to  be  in  accord,  the  one  assisting  or  at 
least  not  opposing  the  other.  The  day  is  not  far  distant 
when,  as  a  certain  well-known  writer  remarks,  were  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  some  newly-discovered  remnant 
of  Arabic  literature,  or  hieroglyphic  just  deciphered 
from  some  Egyptian  monument,  it  would  be  hailed  as 
a  remarkable  anticipation  of  some  of  the  chief  events  of 
modern  science. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BIBLE. 

IT  is  strange,  yet  true,  that  modern  scientific  research 
brings  the  Bible  more  and  more  into  prominence 
every  day.  The  many  subjects  which  are  said  to  be  in 
opposition  to  its  teaching — questions  of  geology,  of 
astronomy,  of  history,  of  biology,  etc., — help  to  cause 
this  result.  We  may  remark  in  passing,  that  truth, 
from  whatever  source  it  comes,  can  not  contradict 
truth ;  and  therefore  real  science  and  real  revelation, 
whether  written  or  unwritten,  can  not  be  in  opposition. 
God  is  the  author  of  all  truth.  Some  truths  belong  to  a 
higher  plane,  some  to  a  lower.  The  verities  of  each 
plane  or  order  may  run  in  parallel  directions,  but  they 
do  not  and  can  not  oppose  each  other. 

It  is  too  late  in  the  day  to  tell  us  we  are  not  allowed 
to  read  the  Bible.  If  the  very  young  and  the  very  illiter- 
ate at  any  time  in  the  history  of  the  Church  made  an 
unworthy  use  of  certain  parts  of  the  sacred  book,  so  as 
to  necessitate  a  temporary  withdrawal  of  it  from  them, 
this  must  not  be  construed  into  a  prohibition  to  Catho- 
lics to  read  the  word  of  God.  The  Church  has  ever 
been  the  guardian  of  the  Bible.  She  guarded  it  for,  and 
gave  it  to,  the  laity  as  well  as  the  clergy.  Even  in  that 
much-abused  medieval  period,  sermons  and  other  writ- 
ings contained  more  scriptural  quotations  and  allusions 


THE   CHURCH   AND   THE   BIBLE.  77 

than  similar  productions  of  the  present  day.  The 
Bible  was  written  originally  in  the  oriental  languages — 
Hebrew,  Chaldaic,  Greek.  From  the  Apostolic  age,  we 
find  translations,  now  of  one  book  of  Scripture,  again 
of  another,  made  into  Latin,  then  the  spoken  tongue  of 
all  the  Western  world.  The  great  Vulgate  version  of 
the  Bible  is  a  work,  partly  of  revision,  partly  of  transla- 
tion, done  by  St.  Jerome  in  the  fifth  century  under 
the  highest  auspices  of  the  Church,  whilst  Latin  was 
still  a  living  and  wide-spread  language.  And  when 
it  had  ceased  to  be  the  language  of  the  people,  and 
the  Vulgate  became  unintelligible  to  them,  transla- 
tions were  made  into  the  many  tongues  which  had 
grown  from  the  parent  of  all  the  languages  of  Western 
Europe.  "  In  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries,"  says 
Hallam,  "  when  the  Vulgate  had  ceased  to  be  generally 
intelligible,  translations  were  freely  made  into  the  ver- 
nacular languages."  Then  the  monks  often  spent  a 
whole  life-time  in  copying  and  illuminating  the  Bible. 
After  the  invention  of  printing,  their  laborious  toil 
became  unnecessary,  and  the  publication  of  various 
editions  of  the  Bible  was  one  of  the  first  uses  to  which 
this  noble  art  was  put.  The  art  of  printing  was  invented 
three-quarters  of  a  century  before  Luther  burned  the 
Pope's  bull,  and  books  were  spread  far  and  wide  through- 
out Europe.  For  over  a  century  after  the  invention  of 
printing  the  Bible  occupied,  more  than  any  other  work, 
the  printers  of  the  old  world.  As  early  as  the  year  1500 
it  was  printed  more  than  one  hundred  times,  and  Luth- 
er's quarrel  with  the  Pope  had  not  reached  its  climax 
until  1520.  Luther's  "  discovery  "  of  a  copy  of  the  Bible 
in  his  monastery  at  Erfurt  is  not  therefore  very  wonder- 
ful ;  nor  is  it  true  to  say  that  the  Reformation  first  gave 


78  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

the  Bible  to  the  people  in  their  own  language.     Besides 
this  multiplicity  of  copies  in  the  language  of  the  peo- 
ple, we  are  encouraged  to  read  the  Scriptures,  some- 
times by  individual  bishops  ;  sometimes  by  the  bishops 
of  a  whole  country  assembled  in  council ;  sometimes 
by  the  very  highest  authority  in  the  Church.      As  a 
sort  of  introduction  to  our  English  Catholic  Bible,  we 
find  a  letter  from  Pope  Pius  V.,  in  which  these  words 
occur  :  "At  a  time  when  a  vast  number  of  bad  books, 
which  grossly  attack  the  Catholic  religion,  are  circulated 
even  among  the  unlearned,  to  the  great  destruction  of 
souls,  it  was  rightly  judged  that  the  faithful  should  be 
excited  to  the  reading  of  the  holy  Scriptures  ;  for  those 
are  the  most  abundant  sources,  which  ought  to  be  left 
open  to  every  one,  to  draw  from  them  purity  of  morals, 
and  of  doctrine,  to  eradicate  the  errors  which  are  so 
widely  disseminated  in  these  corrupt  times."      The 
bishops  of  the  United  States,  assembled  at  the  Third 
Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore,  recommended  the  use  of 
the  Bible  in  the  following  remarkable  words  :    "  It  can 
hardly  be  necessary  to  remind  you,  beloved  brethren, 
that   the  most  highly-valued  treasure  of  every  family 
library,  and  the  most  frequently  and  lovingly  made  use 
of,  should  be  the  holy  Scriptures." 

The  Bible  has  come  to  us  through  the  Church. 
When  it  is  spoken  of  as  being  printed  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  people,  some  seem  to  forget  that  there  are 
other  languages  besides  English.  Twenty-nine  dif- 
ferent editions,  some  of  them  different  versions,  were 
printed  in  German  before  Luther's  Bible.  More  than 
forty  editions  appeared  in  Italian  before  the  Protestant 
Bible  saw  the  light  in  that  language.  There  were  ver- 
sions published  in  Flemish  and  in  Bohemian  ;  there 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BIBLE.  79 

were  versions  in  the  language  of  France,  once  the  favor- 
ite daughter  of  the  Catholic  Church ;  there  were  ver- 
sions published  in  Spain,  the  home  of  the  Inquisition, 
whilst  Protestantism  was  yet  a  thing  of  the  future.  The 
Reformers  were  not  the  first  to  translate  it  into  English ; 
for  we  have  the  high  authority  of  Sir  Thomas  More 
for  saying,  that  before  the  days  of  Wycliff  the  whole 
Bible  was  translated  into  the  English  tongue.  People 
are  accustomed  to  think  of  it  as  a  well-bound  volume, 
taken  down  from  some  book-shelf  by  order*  of  the 
Almighty,  and  safely  put  in  their  hands.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  it  is  made  up  of  a  great  many  books,  written  at 
different  times,  and  by  different  persons,  as  occasion 
called  for  them.  It  was  almost  a  thousand  years  after 
Moses  had  written  the  first  four  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment when  the  various  parts  were  collected  together  in 
one  volume.  The  Epistles  and  Gospels  were  written  to 
particular  churches  or  to  particular  persons.  About 
half  a  century  elapsed  between  the  earliest  Gospel,  that 
of  St.  Matthew  ;  and  the  latest,  that  of  St.  John.  Then 
towards  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  all  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  New  were  collected,  and 
the  Canon  of  Scripture  was  drawn  up  precisely  as  it 
exists  at  the  present  day.  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say 
that  the  Catholic  Church  had  been  the  sole  guardian  of 
the  Bible  for  nearly  fifteen  hundred  years.  During  the 
Church  of  the  martyrs  her  children  gave  up  their  lives 
rather  than  surrender  the  sacred  volume  to  be  desecrated 
by  the  Pagan  persecutors.  When  some  few,  weaker 
than  their  fellows,  gave  up  this  treasure,  they  were 
called  "  traitors  "  (givers-up) ;  and  to  them  this  vile  term 
was  applied  for  the  first  time  in  the  world's  history. 
The  Church  gathered  together  the  different  books  and 


80  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

preserved  them  through  ages  of  ignorance  and  violence ; 
she  afterwards  multiplied  copies  of  them,  and  adorned 
them  with  all  that  art  and  wealth  could  furnish ;  she 
made  them  the  centre  of  the  whole  circle  of  sacred 
learning ;  and  when  music,  and  poetry,  and  painting 
were  cultivated,  it  was  for  the  chanting  of  psalms,  the 
singing  of  mysteries  of  Holy  Writ,  or  the  artistic  repre- 
sentation of  subjects  from  the  Bible. 

The  Bible  may  be  viewed  under  a  twofold  aspect — 
as  a  work  of  history  and  as  an  inspired  book.  As  a 
history  it  is  deserving  of  credit,  such  as  any  other 
respectable  historical  treatise.  As  an  inspired  book  we 
go  farther.  The  Church  has  never  given  an  authentic 
and  complete  exposition  of  the  nature  of  inspiration. 
It  i3  not  enough  to  say  that  the  Scripture  is  the  best 
human  expression  of  divine  wisdom,  for  the  councils 
of  Florence,  Trent,  and  the  Vatican,  have  defined  that 
the  books  of  Scripture  have  God  for  their  author.  A 
Catholic  is  free  to  hold  that  inspiration  consists  in  a 
subsequent  divine  approbation  of  the  book  ;  or  that  it 
consists  in  a  certain  accompanying  assistance,  even 
though  it  be  only  of  a  negative  kind,  given  by  Almighty 
God  to  the  writer.  But  the  most  common  teaching  of 
our  theologians  is  that  the  divine  assistance  given  to  the 
writer  of  the  sacred  text  is  of  a  positive  kind;  that  it  is 
not  only  concomitant  but  also  antecedent ;  that  it  moves 
the  writer  to  conceive  those  things  which  God  wishes 
him  to  write  ;  that  the  writer's  will  reaches  to  these  only ; 
that  the  divine  influence  induces  the  writer  to  write  these 
things  which  God  wishes.  Catholic  doctrine  does  not 
compel  us  to  hold  that  every  wrord  in  the  sacred  Scrip- 
ture is  inspired  ;  nor  does  it  force  us  to  the  belief  that 
minute  matters  of  detail,  put  in  by  way  of  graphic  de- 


THE   CHURCH   AND   THE   BIBLE.  81 

scription,  form  an  inspired  part  of  the  sacred  narrative. 
It  is  well  to  remember  that  the  great  object  of  Scripture 
inspiration  is  faith  and  moral  conduct. 

The  Catholic  Church  is  the  witness  of  the  inspiration 
of  the  Bible.  If  we  accept  it  as  God's  word,  and  all 
Christians  do,  we  must  receive  it  on  the  testimony  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  She  is  our  only  witness,  but  her 
evidence  is  sufficient.  Christians  of  all  denominations 
are  forced  to  acknowledge  this.  A  Protestant  finds  a 
Bible  in  the  family.  The  family  may  have  possessed  it 
as  an  heirloom  since  the  days  of  John  Wesley  or  Mar- 
tin Luther.  Thus  far  they  received  it  on  mere  human 
testimony — human  in  the  beginning,  human  in  the  end, 
the  "  traditions  of  man."  Then  we  ask  ourselves,  where 
did  the  authors  of  the  Reformation  get  the  Bible?  and 
the  answer  brings  us  back  to  the  grand  old  historic 
Church  which  bridges  over  the  chasm  that  lies  between 
the  birth  of  the  great  Revolt  and  the  dawn  of  Chris- 
tianity or  the  age  of  the  Apostles.  Neither  the  Scripture 
itself  nor  ancient  documentary  evidence  is  sufficient  to 
beget  a  moral  certainty  of  its  inspiration.  If  here  and 
there  the  New  Testament  bears  witness  in  some  measure 
to  the  Old,  what  will  bear  witness  to  the  former?  Its 
own  testimony  will  not  suffice,  for  if  one  should  give 
evidence  in  his  own  favor,  his  witness  is  nothing.  We 
are  in  complete  accord  with  Carlyle  when  he  says,  in  all 
the  world  there  is  no  such  book  beside,  for  the  cottage 
window  or  the  statesman's  closet,  the  poet's  instance  or 
the  orator's  pattern,  or  the  help  of  man,  or  the  inspira- 
tion of  a  race.  We  are  pleased  to  find  this  vitriolic  critic 
say,  it  is  the  one  book  wherein  for  thousands  of  years 
the  spirit  of  man  has  found  light  and  nourishment,  and 
a  response  to  whatever  was  deepest  in  his  heart,  yet  we 


82  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

can  not  help  maintaining  that  superhuman  wisdom  and 
beauty  will  not  prove  its  inspiration.  These  are  claimed 
for  the  Koran  as  well  as  for  the  Bible  ;  and  if  they  be  a 
proof  in  the  one  case,  they  are  equally  a  proof  in  the 
other.  They  corroborate  an  existing  belief,  they  may 
give  rise  to  a  certain  limited  probability,  they  are  by  no 
means  enough  to  prove  inspiration,  as  missionaries  have 
found  when  they  put  the  Bible  into  unchristian  hands. 
Nor  does  documentary  evidence  suffice  to  prove  it  for 
those  who  set  aside  the  authority  of  the  Church.  That 
authority  being  set  at  naught,  the  documents  of  the 
early  heresies  must  have  as  much  weight  for  the 
modern  Protestant  as  the  evidence  which  remains 
from  Catholic  sources.  Yet  many  of  the  ancient  here- 
tics such  as  the  Gnostics,  rejected  as  uninspired,  books 
which  Protestants  admit  to  the  Canon  of  Scripture  at 
the  present  time.  The  only  proof  which  carries  convic- 
tion is  the  testimony  of  the  Church  of  which  St.  Peter 
was  the  zealous  head,  and  St.  Paul  the  soul-stirring 
preacher. 

The  Church  is  the  official  interpreter  of  Scripture. 
That  interpretation  which  regards  faith  and  morals 
belongs  exclusively  to  the  Church.  Exegetic  interpreta- 
tion is  unofficial  and  may  be  made  by  anybody.  Light 
may  be  thrown  on  obscure  passages  and  abstruse  Scrip- 
tural questions  by  men  of  learning  and  research  regard- 
less of  their  creed.  The  Bible  contains  many  things 
hard  to  be  understood.  Tho  obscure  nature  of  many 
Scriptural  doctrines  calls  for  an  official  interpreter.  The 
Church  is  a  spiritual  commonwealth.  It  would  be  a 
strange  community,  a  society  of  confusion,  if  all  the 
members  were  allowed  to  interpret  its  laws  and  to  act 
on  their  own  interpretation.     The  very   blunders  of 


THE  CHURCH   AND   THE   BIBLE.  8& 

those  who  deny  an  official  and  infallible  interpreter  are 
the  proof  of  the  necessity  of  such  an  expounder. 
Mosheim,  the  Protestant  historian,  says,  if  each  one 
should  depend  on  the  light  of  reason  to  the  exclusion 
of  authority,  there  would  be  as  many  religions  as  there 
are  heads.  It  is  this  unofficial  system  of  interpretation 
which  gives  so  many  different  sects  to  Protestantism  r 
and  makes  Church-of-England  people,  and  Methodists, 
and  Baptists,  and  the  rest,  degrade  Christianity  by 
preaching  conflicting  doctrines  to  the  heathens  of  Asia 
and  Africa.  In  England  alone,  there  are  two  hundred 
and  fifty  different  religious  systems,  all  begotten  of 
unofficial  biblical  interpretation.  They  guide  them- 
selves by  others  in  important  affairs  ;  their  lawyer  is 
their  guide  in  legal  matters,  their  physician  in  what  con- 
cerns their  health,  their  banker  or  their  man  of  business- 
in  finance,  but  in  the  case  of  their  immortal  souls  they 
consult  no  one.  All  whose  opinion  is  worth  having, 
even  Renan  and  Strauss,  admit  that  revelation  is  an 
acknowledged  historical  fact.  There  is  the  same  reason 
for  protecting  it  as  for  making  it.  Surely  God  did  not 
leave  to  the  sport  of  man's  fancy  the  explanation  of  the 
truth  He  made  known  to  us.  In  order  that  it  be  of  any 
use  to  mankind,  in  other  words,  in  order  that  it  be  to 
us  a  revelation,  there  must  be  a  power  to  interpret  it  of 
equal  authority  with  the  revealed  truth  itself.  Protest- 
antism in  every  land  has  given  us  an  object-lesson  in 
this  truth,  Germany,  for  example,  the  cradle  of  Refor- 
mation, has  also  been  its  grave.  Without  an  official  in- 
terpretation of  Holy  Writ,  Protestantism  has  dwindled 
into  a  natural  Theism ;  its  doctrines  have  become  nebu- 
lous and  vague;  and,  like  dreams,  are  continually  chang- 
ing their  outlines. 


84  RATIONAL  RELIGION. 

The  members  of  the  one  true  Church  under  the  Old 
Law  had  recourse  to  the  High-Priest  and  the  Sanhedrim; 
similarly,  we  Catholics  refer  our  religious  differences  to 
the  Church  for  decision.  Yet  whilst  saying  this  much 
for  Church  authority,  we  do  not  exclude  rational  aids  in 
the  domain  of  Scriptural  criticism  and  exegesis.  In 
common  with  Protestants  and  Rationalists,  we  use  phil- 
ological helps,  helps  derived  from  the  laws  of  thought, 
from  the  scope,  context,  subject  matter,  etc.;  and  we 
use  historical  aids  springing  from  circumstances  of  time, 
persons,  places,  and  such  like,  which  influence  a  writer. 
Whilst  we  may  and  do  suggest  new  meanings  of  phrases 
to  which  the  Church  has  not  attached  any  fixed  inter- 
pretation, yet  the  learned  of  every  school  admit  the 
reasonableness  of  not  interpreting  the  Scriptures  against 
the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers.  This  is  no 
more  of  a  restraint  upon  our  research,  than  is  an  un- 
doubted scientific  fact  on  the  investigations  of  the 
scientist.  It  is  only  the  Church's  official  interpretation 
which  binds  us  as  of  Faith.  Given  an  authorized  inter- 
pretation on  the  one  hand,  given  a  certain  scientific  fact 
on  the  other — not  a  mere  theory  or  an  opinion  of  a  cer- 
tain school — and  the  ingenuity  of  all  men  for  all  time 
will  not  be  able  to  show  any  conflict  between  them. 
St.  Augustine's  words  may  not  be  amiss  here  :  "And  if 
I  ever  find  anything  in  these  documents  (Scriptures) 
which  may  seem  contrary  to  truth,  I  shall  assume 
unhesitatingly  that  either  it  is  a  faulty  copy,  or  that 
the  translation  has  not  attained  the  sense  of  what  was 
spoken,  or  that  we  have  not  understood  it." 

The  Church  is  our  guide  also  as  to  the  Canon  of 
Scripture.  By  the  Canon  of  Scripture  we  mean  the 
list  of  those  books  which  the  Church  holds  as  inspired. 


THE   CHURCH   AND   THE   BIBLE.  85 

Believing  that  the  gates  of  hell  can  never  prevail 
against  the  Church,  and  therefore  that  she  is  infal- 
lible, the  canonicity  of  Scripture  becomes  for  us  an  easy 
question.  It  follows  as  a  conclusion  from  the  infallible 
authority  of  the  Church.  It  was  this  infallible  teach- 
ing which  guided  the  faithful  before  the  Scriptures 
were  written  and  before  the  Canon  of  Scripture  was 
drawn  up.  Scripture  itself  really  rests  on  tradition,  and 
were  it  not  for  the  voice  of  the  Church  we  could  never 
form  a  moral  certainty  as  to  what  books  we  should 
admit  to  the  Canon  of  Scripture  and  what  we  should 
exclude.  The  Fathers  of  the  Church,  assembled  at 
the  Council  of  Hippo  in  393,  at  the  third  Council  of 
Carthage  in  397,  and  at  the  sixth  Council  of  Carthage 
in  419  (their  decision  was  subsequently  confirmed 
by  the  general  Councils  of  Florence  and  Trent),  ought 
to  be  very  good  authority  as  to  what  books  we  should 
receive  as  Canonical  Scriptures.  Their  list  is  our  list, 
and  it  reminds  us  of  the  well-known  saying  of  St. 
Augustine  :  "  For  my  part,  I  should  not  believe  the 
Gospel,  were  I  not  moved  thereto  by  the  authority  of 
the  Catholic  Church. " 

The  Church  also  teaches  us  that  Scripture  is  not  our 
full  and  complete  rule  of  faith.  Tradition  is  required 
to  complete  it.  No  mere  rumor,  or  hearsay,  or  local 
belief,  constitutes  tradition.  It  is  the  unwritten  word 
of  God,  as  Scripture  is  the  written  word.  The  doctrine 
came  first  from  God,  was  taught  by  our  Saviour  and  the 
Apostles,  and  through  them  it  was  passed  on  to  the 
early  Fathers  of  the  Church,  is  recorded  in  their  writ- 
ings, and  thus  it  has  come  down  from  generation  to 
generation. 

Christ  left  His  Church  with  nothing  but  tradition  to 


86  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

guide  it.  St.  Paul,  in  his  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians,  insists  upon  its  necessity  in  these  words  : 
"  Brethren,  stand  fast  and  hold  the  traditions  which  you 
have  learnt,  whether  by  word  or  by  our  epistle  "  (ii.  14). 
All  Christian  denominations  say  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
and  it  is  tradition  which  has  given  it  to  us  ;  all 
Christian  denominations  observe  Sunday,  and  it  is 
tradition  which  has  taught  us  its  observance.  This 
does  not  in  any  way  lessen  our  reverence  for  the  writ- 
ten word.  The  Catholic  Church  honors  and  loves  the 
Scriptures.  By  all  means,  Catholics  should  read  and 
study  the  sacred  books,  and  certainly  they  ought  to 
derive  at  least  as  much  profit  and  pleasure  from  such 
study  as  do  our  separated  brethren. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  MEANING  OF  "OUT  OF  THE  CHURCH  NO 
SALVATION." 

THE  councils  of  the  Church  have  been  convoked 
mostly  because  of  some  attacks  made  upon  her, 
either  in  doctrine  or  discipline.  When  a  person  is 
attacked,  naturally  enough  he  is  unwilling  to  jneld  any 
uncontested  ground  to  his  aggressor.  So  also  with  the 
Church.  Under  pressure  of  an  onslaught  she  states  her 
doctrines  in  a  way,  true  of  course,  but  uncompromising; 
sometimes  using  forms  for  the  proper  understanding  of 
which  an  explanation  is  necessary.  The  phrase  at  the 
head  of  this  chapter  is  an  illustration.  We  find  it  in  the 
Fourth  General  Council  of  Lateran,  held  in  the  year 
1215,  and  called  together  to  protect  the  Church  princi- 
pally against  the  errors  of  the  Albigenses  who  taught 
the  subversion  of  ecclesiastical  authority ;  the  belief  in 
two  Creators  and  two  Christs;  that  the  Sacraments  are 
useless  ceremonies;  that  the  body  does  not  rise  from  the 
dead;  and  that  the  soul  is  a  demon  confined  within  the 
body  in  punishment  of  sin .  Ecclesiastical  history,  we 
are  told,  is  the  right  eye  of  dogmatic  theology,  and 
studying  the  phrase,  "  Out  of  the  Church  no  Salva- 
tion," under  the  fierce  light  of  historical  criticism,  we 
can  readily  understand  why  the  doctrine  of  our  Church 
was  stated  in  a  form  apparently  so  narrow. 

87 


88  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

The  population  of  the  earth  at  the  present  time  is 
estimated  to  be  about  1,437,150,000.  Of  this  number 
217,000,000  are  Catholics.  That  all  others  should  be 
excluded  from  salvation,  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  a 
hard  saying.  The  Church  of  which  there  is  ques- 
tion here,  is  the  Church  established  by  Jesus  Christ 
on  earth.  We  speak  not  of  the  Church  triumphant  in 
Heaven,  nor  of  the  Church  suffering  in  Purgatory,  but 
of  the  Church  militant  on  earth.  The  Church  estab- 
lished by  our  Saviour  and  recognized  by  the  Apostles 
is  a  visible  body.  There  are  in  it  bad  as  well  as  good. 
In  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  we  find  it  compared  to  a  field 
in  which  good  seed  and  weeds  are  allowed  to  grow  up 
together  until  the  day  of  judgment ;  to  a  net  in  which 
good  and  bad  fish  are  caught ;  to  a  wedding  feast  where 
all  the  guests  have  not  donned  the  wedding  garments  ; 
to  virgins  of  whom  some  are  wise,  others  foolish. 

In  order  to  belong  to  the  visible  communion  of  the 
Church  it  is  necessary  to  hold  its  profession  of  Faith, 
not  to  reject  the  Sacraments  or  the  Holy  Sacrifice,  and 
to  acknowledge  the  supreme  rulership  of  the  Sovereign 
Pontiff  in  spiritual  matters.  He  who  pertinaciously 
rejects  an  article  of  faith  becomes  a  heretic  ;  he  who 
refuses  to  admit  the  authority  of  the  Pope  in  spiritual 
things  becomes  a  schismatic. 

The  Church  may  well  be  compared  to  a  person.  We 
distinguish  in  each  human  being  a  twofold  element  : 
the  visible  or  material,  called  the  body  ;  the  invisible  or 
immaterial,  called  the  soul.  No  one  denies  the  animal 
nature  of  man's  body.  The  soul — the  immaterial  ele- 
ment looking  out  of  its  prison-house  of  clay — with  its 
inherent  qualities  of  memory,  of  free-will,  of  reason, 
and  of  immortality,  makes  man  lord  of  creation.    As 


OUT  OF  THE  CHURCH  NO  SALVATION.       89 

man  is  composed  of  body  and  soul,  so  also  is  the 
Church.  Theologians  most  commonly  understand  the 
body  of  the  Church  to  mean  the  aggregation  of  her 
members.  The  soul  of  the  Church  comprises  all  those 
gifts  which  enable  her  to  perform  her  offices  of  bringing 
unbelievers  to  faith,  of  converting  sinners  to  saintliness, 
and  of  making  the  just  more  perfect.  Whoso  is  in  the 
state  of  sanctifying  grace  belongs  to  the  soul  of  the 
Church.  And  he  who  possesses  the  state  of  grace  en- 
joys the  friendship  of  God,  is  heir  to  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven,  and  has  all  the  qualifications  required  for 
admission  to  the  beatific  vision. 

It  is  not  a  dogma  of  Faith  that  all  who  are  outside 
the  visible  communion  of  the  Church  will  be  lost.  It 
is  of  Faith,  that  for  salvation  one  should  belong,  at 
least,  to  the  soul  of  the  Church.  Now,  a  person  may 
be  in  a  state  of  sanctifying  grace,  and  yet  may  not 
belong  to  the  visible  pale  of  the  Church.  The  proxi- 
mate rule  of  morality  for  each  one  is  his  conscience. 
Conscience  is  the  practical  judgment  of  each  person, 
saying  something  in  particular  here  and  now  is  to  be 
avoided,  inasmuch  as  it  is  evil ;  or  is  to  be  done,  inas- 
much as  it  is  good.  It  is  an  act  of  the  intellect,  not  of 
the  will.  It  regards  one's  own  actions,  not  the  actions  of 
others.  It  regards  actions  done  here  and  now,  not 
actions  of  the  past  or  of  the  future.  It  regards  acts  under 
this  aspect  alone,  viz.,  the  lawfulness  or  unlawfulness  of 
them.  The  principles  which  regulate  conscience  are 
three : 

First,  it  is  never  lawful  to  act  against  conscience. 

Second,  it  is  never  lawful  to  act  according  to  con- 
science unless  there  is  present  a  certain  dictate  of  the 
lawfulness  of  the  act.  Doubt  must  therefore  be  removed 
by  means,  direct  or  indirect,  before  action  is  taken. 


90  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

Third,  it  is  lawful  to  do  that  which  a  certain  con- 
science says  is  lawful. 

With  these  principles  before  our  minds,  it  is  evident 
that  for  each  man  his  own  individual  conscience  is  the 
highest  law,  and  sin  is  for  him  an  impossibility  so  long 
as  he  conforms  his  actions  to  that  conscience.  On  the 
other  hand,  to  act  against  one's  conscience  without  com- 
mitting sin,  is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  and  even  God 
Himself  could  not  make  such  a  thing  lawful. 

When  Christ  established  His  Church,  He  issued  a 
command  that  all  should  belong  to  it.  He  sent  His 
Apostles  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  one,  to  teach  all 
nations,  and  the  universal  command  to  teach,  implied 
a  corresponding  universal  command  to  learn.  But  to 
belong  to  the  visible  communion  of  the  Church  is  not 
necessary  in  the  same  sense  that  air  and  water  are  for 
life  ;  in  other  words,  it  is  not  necessary  as  a  means. 
The  nature  of  the  necessity  is  the  same  as  that  which 
binds  Catholics  to  abstain  from  meat  on  Friday,  that  is, 
it  is  necessary  to  belong  to  the  visible  pale  of  the 
Church,  because  Christ  has  issued  a  command  to  that 
effect.  Amongst  the  causes  which  excuse  from  a  law 
of  this  kind,  invincible  ignorance  stands  out  in  bold 
relief.  A  man  may  never  have  heard  of  the  true 
Church  of  Christ,  or  having  heard  of  it,  he  may  have 
used  all  due  diligence  in  looking  for  the  true  Church 
without  success.  In  either  case  he  labors  under  in- 
vincible ignorance.  That  there  are  many  such  people 
in  the  world  theologians  of  every  school,  and  from 
many  lands,  from  France,  Spain,  Italy,  Germany,  and 
Ireland,  bear  ample  testimony.  When  we  consider 
what  are  the  prejudices  of  early  youth,  of  an  erroneous 
education,  the  influence  of  parents  and  teachers,  of 


OUT  OF  THE  CHURCH  NO  SALVATION.       91 

public  opinion  and  public  law ;  in  a  word,  when  we 
remember  that  man  is  the  creature  of  his  environ- 
ments, the  wonder  that  many  are  in  good  faith,  labor- 
ing under  invincible  ignorance,  comes  at  once  to  an 
end.  The  true  Church  is  to  many,  guiltlessly  un- 
known ;  and,  as  Balmez  well  puts  it,  an  unknown  law 
can  not  be  obligatory.  There  is  no  actual  punishment 
without  actual  sin.  There  is  no  actual  sin  without 
liberty,  and  there  is  no  liberty  without  knowledge. 
God,  therefore,  does  not  punish  people  for  being  out- 
side the  visible  communion  of  the  Church  through  no 
fault  of  their  own.  But  suppose  a  doubt  should  pre- 
sent itself  to  the  mind  of  an  outsider,  he  is  bound  in 
conscience  to  search  for  the  truth,  and  having  found, 
to  accept  it.  A  stanza  from  Cardinal  Newman's  well- 
known  hymn  sums  up  the  theology  of  this  case  : 

"  Lead,  kindly  light,  amid  the  encircling  gloom 
Lead  thou  me  on  ! 
The  night  is  dark,  and  1  am  far  from  home, 
Lead  thou  me  on  ! " 

God  did  not  create  people  to  be  lost.  Our  concep- 
tion of  the  common  Father  of  all,  does  not  imply  that 
He  is  a  cruel  or  an  unjust  God.  Nor  has  our  doctrine, 
when  properly  understood,  any  elements  of  cruelty  in 
it.  It  is  taught  in  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy 
that  God  gives  to  all  men  opportunities  of  salvation. 
u  For  this  is  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God 
our  Saviour,  who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and  to 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  "  (I.  Tim.  ii.  4-6). 
He  gives  to  all  the  means,  either  proximately  or 
remotely,  sufficient  for  salvation  ;  so  that  if  people  be 
damned,  they  are  lost,  not  because  God  created  them 
for  eternal  punishment,  but  because  they  did  not  make 


92  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

use  of  the  means  at  their  disposal  for  the  attainment  of 
salvation. 

In  reference  to  the  subject  under  consideration, 
those  who  are  outside  the  visible  communion  of  the 
Church  may  be  divided  into  three  classes,  namely, 
children  who  die  without  Baptism,  baptized  Protestants, 
and  pagans.  Punishment  in  the  next  world  is  two- 
fold :  the  pain  of  loss  and  the  pain  of  sense.  The  for- 
mer consists  in  the  absence  of  the  beatific  vision,  or  not 
seeing  God  ;  the  latter,  in  the  positive  suffering  inflicted. 
It  is  not  true  to  say  that  our  Church  teaches  as  an 
article  of  Faith  that  children  who  die  without  Baptism 
are  condemned  to  any  pain  of  sense.  They  are  ex- 
cluded from  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  and  Catholic 
doctrine  limits  itself  to  this  privation.  Indeed,  it 
would  appear  contrary  to  the  bounteous  mercy  of  the 
All- Wise  if  personal  suffering  were  inflicted  in  the  next 
life  where  there  had  been  no  personal  sin  in  this. 

The  Almighty,  in  the  distribution  of  His  grace,  sin- 
cerely wishes  the  salvation  of  these  children.  Certain 
causes  prevent  the  application  of  baptism — the  means 
or  remedy  provided  by  God.  As  universal  Provider, 
He  is  not  bound  to  stop  by  miracle  the  effect  of  these 
causes.  From  this,  however,  it  by  no  means  follows 
that  unbaptized  children  will  have  to  endure  the  pain 
of  sense.  As  to  the  loss  of  the  beatific  vision,  we  must 
remember  that  eternal  happiness  is  not  natural  to  man. 
Unbaptized  children  have  not  in  them  the  principle  of 
eternal  life.  The  privation  of  the  beatific  vision  is  not 
to  them  a  harshness.  They  may  not  even  know  that 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  beatific  vision.  It  is  the 
teaching  of  St.  Thomas  that  they  enjoy  God  by  a 
natural  knowledge  and  love.      It  is  the  teaching  of 


OUT  OF  THE  CHURCH  NO  SALVATION.       93 

theologians  of  the  highest  authority,  that  children  who 
die  without  baptism,  so  far  from  being  punished  by 
the  pain  of  sense,  or  even  the  pain  of  loss,  will  enjoy 
the  highest  form  of  natural  happiness,  higher  than  any 
attainable  by  man  on  earth.  God  is  just;  therefore  He 
will  not  punish  the  innocent. 

The  possibility  of  salvation  for  baptized  Protestants 
does  not  present  any  serious  difficulty.  It  is  not  the 
teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church  that  all  Protestants 
will  be  lost.  They  may  follow  the  dictates  of  con- 
science, as  they  are  really  bound  to  do.  They  may  be 
in  invincible  ignorance  of  the  true  Church,  in  which 
case  all  theologians  agree  that  they  are  not  culpable  in 
the  eyes  of  God  for  not  entering  it.  Invincible  ignor- 
ance excuses  them  from  the  command  of  belonging  to 
the  body  of  the  Church,  and  if  they  be  in  a  state  of 
sanctifying  grace,  they  belong  to  the  soul  of  the  Church. 
It  is  the  teaching  of  the  Church  that  any  one— Jew,  or 
Pagan,  or  Protestant — may  baptize  validly.  All  who 
are  baptized  are  Christians.  In  Baptism  the  virtues  of 
Faith,  Hope,  and  Charity,  are  infused  into  the  soul. 
The  baptized  possess  the  power  of  making  acts  of 
divine  faith,  and  grievous  sin  dees  not  destroy  that 
power.  All  Christians  hold  the  necessity  of  Faith  for 
salvation.  "But  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to 
please  God"  (Rom.  xi.  6).  Human  faith  is  not  suffi- 
cient ;  divine  faith  is  necessary.  We  believe,  not  on 
the  authority  of  man  as  such,  but  on  the  authority  of 
God.  God  may  speak  to  us  through  man  as  His 
prophet,  or  His  messenger,  or  His  ambassador.  And 
here  we  have  to  make  an  important  distinction  between 
divine  faith  and  Catholic  faith.  All  Catholic  faith  is 
divine,  but  all  divine   faith  is  not  Catholic.     Divine 


94  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

faith  is  the  sacred  deposit  contained  in  the  Scrip- 
tures and  in  the  traditions  of  the  Church.  A  truth 
is  not  of  Catholic  faith  (even  though  that  truth  be 
contained  in  the  sacred  deposit)  until  it  is  formally 
proposed  by  .the  Church  for  our  acceptance.  Catholic 
faith  is  not  necessary  for  all.  It  is  not  necessary  for 
those  who  are  in  guiltless  ignorance  of  the  true 
Church.  Divine  faith  is  sufficient,  and  divine  faith 
Protestants  can  have.  "  To  believe,"  says  St.  Thomas, 
"  is  an  act  of  the  intellect  assenting  to  divine  truth  by 
command  of  the  will  moved  by  the  grace  of  God." 
The  motive  of  divine  faith  is  the  authority  of  God 
revealing  a  truth.  Baptized  Protestants  may  have  this 
motive  ;  they  may  believe  on  the  authority  of  God. 
They  may  use  private  judgment  to  find  out  the  truth, 
but  God's  truth  and  God's  will  they  make  supreme, 
and  would  not  willingly  make  them  secondary  to  their 
own  views.  Hence  we  conclude  that  there  is  a  pos- 
sibility of  salvation  for  baptized  Protestants. 

But  what  of  the  possibility  of  salvation  for  pagans? 
Is  there  no  hope  for  them  ?  We  shall  see.  The  teach- 
ing of  our  theologians  is  summed  up  in  the  axiom  : 
"  Facienti  quod  in  se  esty  Deus  non  denegat  gratiam  " — uTo 
him  who  does  what  he  can,  God  will  not  deny  grace." 
They  are  bound  to  obey  the  law  of  nature  ;  God  gives 
them  grace  for  its  observance.  If  this  divine  gift  be 
well  used,  God  will  be  still  more  generous,  until  finally 
the  light  of  faith  shines  in  the  intellect  of  the  unbeliever. 
God,  by  reason  of  His  will  to  sa>ve  all,  most  certainly 
gives  grace  to  every  one  who  does  not  put  obstacles  in 
the  way.  Even  those  who  never  heard  of  God  or 
Christ,  or  Christianity,  or  the  Church,  can  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  a  Supreme  Being  from  the  light  of  reason 


OUT  OF  THE  CHURCH  NO  SALVATION.        95 

alone.  "  But  that  which  is  known  of  God  is  manifest 
in  them.  For  God  has  manifested  it  to  them.  For 
the  invisible  things  of  Him,  from  the  creation  of  the 
world,  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things 
that  are  made  ;  His  eternal  power  also  and  His  divin- 
ity ;  so  that  they  are  inexcusable"  (Romans  i.  19,  20). 
The  voice  of  conscience  also  tells  them  of  a  responsi- 
bility to  a  Higher  Power.  The  "  still  small  voice  "  tells 
them  that  certain  things  are  bad,  and  they  know  that 
the  Supreme  Being  is  a  rewarder  of  the  good  things 
and  a  punisher  of  the  bad.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a 
Pagan  pure  and  simple.  There  was  given  to  Adam  a 
primitive  revelation,  and  howsoever  obscured  this  may 
have  become,  yet  it  is  still  the  heritage  of  all  mankind. 
It  is  worth  while  noting  in  this  connection  the  teaching 
of  the  great  Spanish  theologian,  Lugo,  regarding  Jews 
and  Mohammedans.  He  says,  they  can  have  super- 
natural faith  in  God,  and  other  divine  truths  pro- 
pounded in  Holy  Scripture,  which  they  receive  from 
tradition,  and  having  that  faith,  can  therefore  be  justi- 
fied and  saved.  The  teaching  of  St.  Thomas  regarding 
the  guileless  heathen  has  almost  become  commonplace 
from  quotation.  He  writes  :  "  God  would  give  an 
interior  revelation  of  the  truths  necessary  to  believe,  or 
send  .him  a  preacher  of  the  faith  as  He  sent  Peter  to 
Cornelius." 

If  all  this  be  true,  if  people  can  be  saved  without 
being  members  of  the  visible  communion  of  the  Church, 
what  is  the  advantage  of  being  a  Catholic?  It  must  be 
remembered  that  no  one  can  lose  the  true  Faith,  except 
through  his  own  fault ;  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that 
when  a  doubt  presents  itself  to  one  who  is  outside 
the  visible  pale  of  the  Church,  he  is  bound  to  in- 


96  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

vestigate ;  it  must  not  be  forgotten,  that  when  one 
knows  the  true  Church  he  is  bound  to  join  it.  God's 
words  are  committed  to  the  guardianship  of  the  true 
Church.  Those  who  do  not  belong  to  the  body  of  the 
Church  have  not  the  benefits  of  the  Sacraments.  They 
lose  the  gifts  given  to  man  through  these  channels  of 
grace.  Marvelous  as  are  the  secret  workings  of  nature, 
still  more  wonderful  are  the  secret  effects  of  divine 
grace  in  the  soul.  The  seven  Sacraments  correspond 
with  the  seven  stages  in  man's  life.  Each  Sacrament 
gives  a  grace  common  to  all  the  others,  and  also  a  grace 
peculiar  to  itself,  having  for  its  object  the  end  for  which 
the  Sacrament  was  instituted.  There  are  many  other 
spiritual  aids  given  to  those  who  belong  to  the  visible 
communion  of  the  Church.  It  is  very  difficult  for 
those  who  have  not  the  graces  given  through  the  Sacra- 
ments, especially  the  Sacraments  of  Penance  and  Holy 
Eucharist,  to  lead  a  life  without  falling  into  one  griev- 
ous sin  at  least.  Then  the  only  means  of  salvation  is 
by  perfect  contrition.  And,  after  having  led  a  careless 
life,  it  is  not  an  easy  matter  to  make  an  act  of  perfect 
love  of  God.  The  sum  of  our  teaching  is  this  :  There 
is  a  possibility  of  salvation  for  all;  there  is  a  comparative 
facility  of  salvation  for  those  who  belong  to  the  visible 
communion  of  the  Church.  Thus  we  see  how  beauti- 
fully the  mercy  and  justice  of  God  are  made  to  har- 
monize ;  we  see  how  Christianity  loses  none  of  its  joy- 
ousness  by  a  teaching  needlessly  severe ;  we  learn  a 
doctrine  calculated  not  to  break  men's  hearts,  but  to 
melt  them  to  divine  love,  and  to  an  acknowledgment 
of  the  Fatherhood  of  God. 


CHAPTER  X. 

INDULGENCES. 

MORE  than  half  a  century  ago  a  writer  in  a  British 
review  called  attention  to  the  deplorable  ignorance 
among  non-Catholics  concerning  Indulgences,  an  ignor- 
ance reaching  from  Southey,  the  poet-laureate  of  that 
day,  down  to  the  dullest  unbeliever  in  all  England. 
We  may  add  that  even  at  the  present  time  there  is  not 
a  doctrine  of  the  Church  about  which  there  is  more 
misunderstanding,  as  is  evident  from  the  pulpit  utter- 
ances, and  books,  even  histories,  of  our  separated 
brethren. 

Words  sometimes  change  their  meaning  with  lapse 
of  time.  Thus,  the  word  "  prevent,"  at  one  time  meant 
to  go  before,  now  it  means  to  stop,  to  hinder  ;  "  tempt," 
meant  to  try,  to  prove,  now  it  means  to  solicit  to  evil ; 
"  offend,"  to  cause  to  err,  now  means  to  displease,  or  to 
injure.  In  an  old  English  version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment St.  Paul  is  called  the  villain  of  Jesus  Christ.  The 
epithet  will  not  astonish  us,  if  we  remember  that  the 
word  "  villain  "  then  meant  servant.  Thus,  also,  has  the 
word  u  indulgence  "  changed  its  meaning.  Formerly  it 
meant  favor,  remission,  or  forgiveness ;  now  it  is  some- 
times taken  in  the  sense  of  unlawful  gratification.  This 
latter  meaning  easily  suggested  the  idea  that  an  indul- 
gence is  a  license  to  commit  sin.     We  shall  see  that  so 

97 


98  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

far  from  being  a  liberty  to  sin,  it  is  an  incentive  to  virtue. 

In  the  theological  sense,  the  word  "  indulgence  "  im- 
plies an  act  of  clemency  on  the  part  of  the  Church.  An 
Indulgence  is  a  remission  of  the  punishment  which  is 
still  due  to  sin  after  the  guilt,  and  therefore  the  eternal 
punishment  is  forgiven,  this  remission  being  valid  in 
the  court  of  conscience  and  before  God,  and  being  made 
by  the  application  of  the  treasure  of  the  Church  on  the 
part  of  a  lawful  superior.  Whatever  may  be  said  on 
the  dark  question  of  the  origin  of  evil,  we  are  certain 
that  sin  exists  ;  that  some  sins  do  not  exclude  from  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven,  as  those  committed  by  him  who 
falls  several  times  a  day  and  yet  is  a  just  man ;  that 
other  sins  will  shut  us  out  for  ever  from  God,  such  as 
those  mentioned  in  the  partial  list  drawn  up  by  St.  Paul: 
"Know  you  not  that  the  unjust  shall  not  possess  the 
kingdom  of  God  ?  Do  not  err.  Neither  fornicators,  nor 
idolaters,  nor  adulterers,  nor  the  effeminate,  nor  liars 
with  mankind,  nor  thieves,  nor  covetors,  nor  drunkards, 
nor  railers,  nor  extortioners,  shall  possess  the  kingdom 
of  God  "  (I.  Cor.  vi.  9, 10). 

All  Catholic  theologians  agree  in  distinguishing 
between  the  guilt  or  offense  of  sin,  and  its  punishment. 
The  offense  is  the  injury  done  to  God ;  the  punishment 
is  the  chastisement  that  God  has  a  right  to  inflict.  They 
distinguish  the  punishment  which  is  eternal,  and  the 
punishment  which  is  merely  temporal.  The  offense  or 
guilt  of  sin,  and  its  eternal  punishment,  are  chiefly  for- 
given by  the  Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  Penance,  and 
not  by  an  Indulgence.  An  act  of  perfect  love  of  God 
will  also  reconcile  the  sinner  with  the  Eternal  Father. 
Venial  sin  may  of  course  be  blotted  out  by  Sacramental 
absolution,  but  forgiveness  of  it  may  also  be  obtained 


INDULGENCES.  99 

by  various  other  acts  of  piety,  such  as  hearing  Mass, 
saying  the  Lord's  Prayer,  using  piously  any  object 
blessed  by  the  Church.  Sometimes  one's  love  of  God 
may  be  so  all-consuming  that  it  leaves  no  place  even  for 
temporal  punishment.  Usually  the  temporal  punish- 
ment remains.  We  have  many  Scriptural  examples  of 
this.  In  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Numbers 
we  are  told  that  Mary,  the  sister  of  Moses,  committed 
sin  by  murmuring  against  him.  She  repented,  yet  a 
temporal  punishment  of  leprosy,  and  of  a  seven  days' 
separation  from  her  people,  was  imposed  upon  her. 
Adam  repented  of  his  sin,  yet  the  Lord  told  him  he 
should  eat  with  labor  and  toil  for  the  rest  of  his  days. 
Moses  sinned  by  want  of  confidence  in  God.  He  was  a 
sincere  penitent  and  was  therefore  forgiven.  God,  how- 
ever, would  not  allow  him  to  enter  the  promised  land. 
What  is  this  but  a  temporal  punishment?  Aaron  com- 
mitted the  same  sin  and  died  in  Mt.  Hor,  instead  of  in 
the  Land  of  Promise.  Perhaps  the  most  conspicuous  ex- 
ample of  our  doctrine  of  temporal  punishment  is  to  be 
found  in  the  case  of  David.  "And  David  said  to  Nathan  r 
I  have  sinned  against  the  Lord.  And  Nathan  said  to 
David  :  The  Lord  also  hath  taken  away  thy  sin ;  thou 
shalt  not  die.  Nevertheless,  because  thou  hast  given 
occasion  to  the  enemies  of  the  Lord  to  blaspheme,  for 
this  thing,  the  child  that  is  born  to  thee  shall  surely 
die  "  (II.  Kings  xii.  13,  14). 

St.  Augustine  taught  the  existence  of  temporal  pun- 
ishment  in  the  words  :  "  O  Lord,  Thou  dost  not  leave 
unpunished  the  sins  of  even  those  to  whom  Thou 
grantest  pardon  "  (Comment  on  Ps.  50,  n.  ii.). 

The  doctrine  of  Indulgences  rests  upon  two  others — 
the  Communion  of  Saints,  and  the  existence  of  a  spiritual 


100  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

treasury  in  the  Church.  The  members  of  God's  Church 
are  bound  together  by  a  common  bond.  The  Com- 
munion of  Saints  gives  them  a  community  of  spiritual 
goods  in  the  Church.  By  virtue  of  this  community  of 
spiritual  interests  the  faithful  have  power  mutually  to 
assist  each  other.  By  virtue  of  the  Communion  of 
Saints,  the  good  that  is  done  by  individuals  in  the 
Christian  commonwealth  promotes  in  some  measure 
the  good  of  all,  just  as  citizens  who  possess  civic  virtue 
and  honest  enterprise  advance  the  interests  of  the 
whole  community.  All  the  good  acts  of  the  just  have 
a  twofold  value,  namely,  that  of  merit  and  that  of 
satisfaction.  One  merits  for  himself  ;  but  the  satisfac- 
tion, or  atonement,  or  compensation,  or  payment  of  a 
debt,  or  whatever  else  we  choose  to  call  it,  may  be 
applied  to  another.  There  is  nothing  objectionable, 
and  there  is  much  to  be  admired  in  a  man  paying  the 
debts  of  his  needy  friends.  The  satisfaction  made  to 
God  is  merely  a  payment  from  the  rich  spiritual  treas- 
ury of  the  Church,  due  to  the  Almighty  by  reason  of 
the  temporal  punishment  due  to  sin.  Christ's  atone- 
ment for  sin  was  so  great  "that  where  sin  abounded, 
grace  has  superabounded  "  (Rom.  v.  20).  The  satisfac- 
tion made  by  Him  was  either  infinite,  or  practically 
the  same  as  infinite.  Suppose  the  planets  were  in- 
habited, suppose  millions  of  worlds  were  created  and 
as  thickly  peopled  as  China  is  to-day,  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ  to  His  Father  would  be  enough  and  more  than 
enough  for  all.  A  very  small  act  on  the  part  of  Christ 
would  have  been  enough  to  redeem  the  world,  but  He 
offered  His  whole  being  in  sacrifice.  As  this  sacrifice 
can  not  be  unprofitable  it  goes  to  make  up  the  treasury 
of  the  Church.    God's  mother  had  no  sin,  and  therefore 


INDULGENCES.  101 

no  temporal  punishment  for  which  to  satisfy.  Her 
satisfaction,  the  result  of  a  life  of  good  works,  goes  to 
swell  the  spiritual  treasury  of  the  Church.  Then  there 
are  the  satisfactory  works  of  the  saints.  Many  of  them, 
doubtless,  offered  satisfaction  far  beyond  any  due  for 
their  sins.  Ail  this  superabundance  is  not  forgotten 
by  God.  As  the  good  works  of  the  saints  derive  their 
value  from  Christ,  they  do  not  decrease  His  honor,  but 
show  forth  His  Glory.  "  There  is  no  need,"  writes  Car- 
dinal Bellarmine,  "  to  unite  the  sufferings  of  the  saints 
with  those  of  our  Divine  Lord,  as,  if  the  latter  were  not 
sufficient  in  themselves,  they  are  joined  to  these  honors, 
because  it  is  fitting  that  their  sufferings  should  not  be 
unprofitable  before  God,  particularly  since  such  a 
course,  besides  tending  in  a  high  degree  to  glorify  the 
Redeemer  from  Whom  these  holy  ones  derive  all  their 
blessings,  redounds  very  much  to  the  honor  of  the 
saints  themselves  "  (De  Indul.  lib.  1,  chap.  7). 

The  power  of  granting  Indulgences  belongs  to  the 
Pope  for  the  whole  Church,  and  to  the  bishops  for  their 
respective  dioceses.  A  plenary  Indulgence  is  the  remis- 
sion of  all  the  temporal  punishment  of  which  one  is 
worthy  in  the  eyes  of  God.  A  plenary  Indulgence  is 
rarely  gained  to  its  fullest  extent,  and  we  can  not  know 
when  it  is.  In  order  to  understand  the  meaning  of  a 
partial  Indulgence,  we  must  recall  to  mind  the  public 
penances  which  were  wont  to  be  imposed  in  the  early 
days  of  the  Church.  They  were  very  severe,  sometimes 
consisting  of  a  fast  on  bread  and  water  for  a  whole  life- 
time, or  for  a  long  term  of  years.  A  partial  Indulgence 
is  the  remission  of  as  much  of  the  temporal  punish- 
ment as  would  have  been  remitted  by  the  performance 
of  canonical  penance  for  a  corresponding  length  of  time. 


102  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

Thus  when  an  Indulgence  of  forty  days  or  forty  years 
is  granted,  it  means  that  there  is  forgiven  as  much  of 
the  temporal  punishment  as  would  have  been  blotted 
out  by  forty  days  or  forty  years  of  canonical  penance. 
We  do  not,  and  we  can  not,  know  the  full  extent  to  which 
Indulgences  cancel  temporal  punishment  with  God. 
That  depends  on  the  dispositions  of  the  persons  and  on 
the  amount  of  debt  due  to  the  Almighty.  Some  Indul- 
gences are  granted  without  limit  as  to  time  ;  some  for  a 
specified  time.  The  former  are  called  perpetual ;  the 
latter,  temporary.  Sometimes  Indulgences  may  be 
gained  only  in  a  particular  place,  and  are  called  local ; 
sometimes  they  are  granted  immediately  and  directly 
to  persons,  for  instance,  to  an  order  or  confraternity,  and 
are  called  personal ;  sometimes  they  are  attached  to 
things,  such  as  crucifixes,  medals,  etc.,  and  are  called 
real. 

Two  things,  and  only  two,  are  of  Catholic  Faith  re- 
garding Indulgences.  These  are  :  first,  the  Church  has 
power  to  grant  them  ;  second,  their  use  is  eminently 
salutary  to  a  Christian  people.  Other  things  may  be 
almost  articles  of  Faith,  such  as,  the  temporal  punish- 
ment due  to  sin  is  blotted  out  by  Indulgences;  some 
Indulgences  may  be  applied  to  the  souls  in  Purgatory; 
there  is  in  the  Church  a  spiritual  treasury  made  up  of 
the  satisfactions  of  Christ  and  the  saints  ;  but  only  the 
two  points  mentioned  are  we  bound  to  accept  as  articles 
of  our  Faith. 

That  the  Church  has  power  to  grant  Indulgences  we 
know  from  several  sources.  Christ  addressed  St.  Peter 
in  these  words :  "  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  upon 
earth,  it  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven;  and  whatsoever 


INDULGENCES.  103 

thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  it  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven" 
(Matt.  xvi.  17).  In  similar  language  He  conveyed  the 
same  meaning  to  all  the  Apostles  (xviii.  18).  The 
words  must  be  taken  in  their  broadest  signification,  as 
there  is  question  of  conferring  a  favor.  To  the  power 
granted  there  is  no  limit  assigned  in  the  text,  nor  in 
the  context,  nor  in  any  other  part  of  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
ture, and  the  practice  of  the  Church  from  the  days  of 
the  Apostles  has  been  to  grant  Indulgences.  The  words 
of  the  text  show,  that  power  has  been  given  to  remove 
every  obstacle  which  prevents  one  from  entering  heaven. 
Temporal  punishment  is  an  obstacle ;  therefore  power  is 
given  to  remove  it.  The  same  conclusion  follows  from 
the  usage  of  speech.  The  metaphor  of  the  keys  shows 
it.  When  we  say  a  man  has  the  keys  of  any  place,  the 
clear  meaning  is  that  he  can  open  the  doors  and  get  us 
admission  to  it. 

The  power  of  granting  Indulgences  was  exercised  in 
the  Church  of  Apostolic  times.  Paul  granted  an  In- 
dulgence to  the  criminal  Corinthian.  This  man  had 
been  condemned  to  a  severe  medicinal  punishment. 
He  repented,  and  Paul  freed  him  from  the  penalty 
previously  imposed.  "  To  him  that  is  such  a  one,  this 
rebuke  is  sufficient,  which  is  given  by  many.  So  that 
contrariwise  you  should  rather  pardon  and  comfort  him, 
lest,  perhaps,  such  a  one  be  swallowed  up  with  over- 
much sorrow.  *****  AM  to  whom  you  have 
pardoned  anything,  I  also.  For,  what  I  have  par- 
doned, if  I  have  pardoned  anything,  for  your  sakes  I 
have  done  it,  in  the  person  of  Christ"  (II.  Cor.  ii.  6-10). 
The  teaching  that  the  Church  has  power  to  grant  In- 
dulgences is  handed  down  to  us  in  a  manner  clear,  con- 
stant, uninterrupted,  and  universal,  from  the  days  of  the 


104  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

Apostles.  History  tells  us  of  barbarous  persecutions 
of  the  early  Christians.  The  first  three  centuries  of  the 
Church's  existence  are  known  as  the  period  of  the  Church 
of  the  martyrs.  The  tortures  were  so  savagely  severe 
that  we  must  not  be  surprised  if  some  of  the  Christians 
apostatized,  or  pretended  to  have  done  so.  Many  of 
them  were  afterwards  truly  penitent.  They  frequently 
brought  letters  of  recommendation  from  those  who 
were  about  to  be  martyred.  On  the  strength  of  these 
letters  the  bishops  applied  to  the  penitents  the  super- 
abundant satisfactions  of  the  martyrs  and  lessened  the 
penance  which  they  should  otherwise  undergo.  In  the 
third  century  St.  Cyprian  wrote  these  words  :  "  Since 
I  find  that  it  will  not  yet  be  in  my  power  to  come 
amongst  you  *  *  *  *  *  :  *  I  think  that  the  case 
of  our  brethren  ought  to  be  met,  so  that  they  who  have 
received  tickets  from  the  martyrs  and  who  have  been 
helped  by  their  privilege  from  God  *  *  *  *  may 
go  before  the  Lord  with  that  peace  which  the  martyrs,  by 
their  letters  unto  us,  have  desired  might  be  granted." 
This  manner  of  granting  Indulgences  ended  with  the 
persecutions.  But  the  Councils  of  the  Church,  her 
saints  and  her  representative  men,  such  as  Basil  the 
Great  in  the  fourth  century,  and  Leo  the  Great  in  the 
sixth,  make  frequent  reference  to  the  fact  that  the 
bishops  of  this  period  continuously  granted  Indul- 
gences to  deserving  penitents.  In  the  ninth  century 
began  the  custom  of  changing  the  canonical  penances 
into  something  less  severe  ;  to  the  saying  of  psalms,  the 
giving  of  alms,  etc.  In  1095,  Pope  Urban  the  Second 
granted  an  Indulgence  to  all  who,  for  religious  reasons, 
should  join  the  crusade  against  the  Saracens  for  the 
recovery  of  the  Holy  Land  and  should  die  in  God's 


INDULGENCES.  105 

friendship  whilst  engaged  in  this  work.  And  so 
through  all  the  ages  we  can  trace  the  uniform  teaching 
of  the  Church  on  Indulgences,  from  the  Leo  of  our  time, 
the  patron  of  all  that  is  beautiful  and  good,  to  the 
patron  of  art  and  of  letters,  Leo  the  Tenth,  who  gave 
Luther  the  pretext  for  revolt.  And  from  this  Leo  we 
trace  our  doctrine  through  the  chivalrous  days  of  the 
crusades,  backward  and  yet  further  back  till  we 
come  to  the  time  when  Paul  rebuked  and  yet  obeyed 
Peter. 

There  is  really  nothing  wonderful  in  the  fact  that 
the  Church  has  power  to  grant  Indulgences.  An  Indul- 
gence is  a  favor.  The  ruler  of  every  community  or 
society,  be  it  ever  so  small,  grants  favors  at  times.  The 
head  of  a  family,  the  mayor  of  a  city,  the  governor  of 
a  state,  the  ruler  of  a  nation,  all  grant  favors  or  Indul- 
gences of  a  kind  other  than  spiritual.  What  wonder 
then  if  the  chief  of  a  spiritual  kingdom  should  grant 
spiritual  Indulgences?  Let  us  take  an  example.  A 
criminal  is  sentenced  to  a  life-long  imprisonment.  By 
his  exemplary  conduct  he  attracts  the  attention  of  the 
officials,  until  finally  the  mind  of  the  governor  or  of 
the  president  is  directed  to  the  case.  The  ruler  may 
grant  remission  of  the  whole  punishment,  or  he  may 
give  a  punishment  vastly  lighter.  This  latter  is  what 
the  Church  does  in  her  spiritual  kingdom. 

In  order  to  gain  an  Indulgence  we  must  have  an 
intention  of  doing  so.  Whatever  maybe  said  as  to  the 
nature  of  that  intention,  it  is  certain  that  if  one  makes 
up  his  mind  in  the  morning  to  gain  all  the  Indulgences 
of  the  day,  this  intention  perseveres.  A  second  condi- 
tion is,  the  faithful  performance  as  to  time,  place,  and 
manner,  of  the  works  prescribed.     The  third  chief  con- 


106  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

dition  is  the  state  of  grace,  at  least  when  the  last  pre- 
scribed work  is  performed.  This  is  reasonable.  An  In- 
dulgence is  a  favor,  and  we  can  not  expect  a  favor  from 
him  with  whom  we  are  at  enmity.  No  Indulgence  can  be 
obtained  for  an  unforgiven  sin.  No  matter  how  venial  or 
small  a  sin  may  be,  it  cannot  be  forgiven  by  an  Indul- 
gence. Let  it  be  written  in  letters  of  gold ;  that  to  gain  an 
Indulgence  one  must  be  free  from  grave  sin  and  there- 
fore sincerely  desirous  of  leading  a  good  life. 

With  a  strange  persistency  some  writers  tell  us  Leo 
the  Tenth,  in  Luther's  time,  and  the  Church  at  other 
times,  sold  Indulgences.  In  fact,  the  Council  of  Trent 
wishes  that  spiritual  graces  should  be  given  not  only 
gratuitously,  but  in  such  a  way  as  to  exclude  altogether 
the  imputation  of  temporal  motives.  Leo  the  Tenth 
was  anxious  to  complete  the  Church  of  St.  Peter,  com- 
menced by  Julius  the  Second.  Among  the  conditions 
laid  down  for  gaining  some  Indulgences,  an  alms,  to  be 
devoted  to  some  good  purpose,  is  sometimes  asked. 
Pope  Leo  intended  the  alms  of  the  faithful,  given  on 
the  occasion  of  the  Indulgence  granted  by  him,  to  go  to- 
wards the  building  of  that  magnificent  Church,  which  is 
an  honor  to  Christendom.  This  is  a  very  different  thing 
from  selling  an  Indulgence.  A  few  years  ago  Leo  the 
Thirteenth  granted  the  Indulgence  of  the  Jubilee,  and 
one  of  the  conditions  was  that  an  alms  proportionate  to 
the  means  of  each  person  be  given.  One  of  the  objects 
towards  which  these  alms  went,  was  the  maintenance 
of  the  schools  of  the  East.  All  agree  that  this  was 
praiseworthy.  All  should  agree  that  the  similar  action 
of  Leo  the  Tenth  was  equally  praiseworthy.  It  can 
not  be  shown,  and  it  is  not  true,  that  Leo  the  Tenth, 
or  any  of  his  predecessors,  or  any  of  his  successors, 


INDULGENCES.  107 

authorized,  or  encouraged,  or  permitted  the  sale  of  In- 
dulgences. The  Church  must  not  be  held  responsible 
for  the  action  of  officious  and  irresponsible  individuals. 
Abuses  sprang  up,  but  were  quickly  denounced.  The 
Church  denounced  them  in  the  Council  of  Lateran  held 
under  Innocent  the  Third,  in  the  Council  of  Lyons 
under  Innocent  the  Fourth,  and  that  before  the  days  of 
the  Reformers.  The  mind  of  the  Church  in  condemna- 
tion of  all  such  abuses  is  made  known  by  the  Council 
of  Trent  in  these  words :  "  Wishing  to  correct  and 
amend  the  abuses  which  have  crept  into  them,  and  on 
the  occasion  of  which  this  signal  name  of  Indulgences 
is  blasphemed  by  heretics,  the  holy  Synod  enjoins  in 
general,  by  the  present  decree,  that  all  wicked  traffic 
for  obtaining  them,  which  has  been  the  fruitful  source 
of  many  abuses  among  Christian  people,  should  be 
wholly  abolished." 

Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  some  Indulgences  may 
be  applied  to  the  souls  in  Purgatory.  Some  Indul- 
gences are  granted  as  applicable  to  these  poor  souls.  The 
Church  has  no  direct  jurisdiction  over  them.  But  the 
faithful  may  offer  satisfaction  to  God  with  a  prayer 
that  He  may  accept  it  in  behalf  of  the  occupants  of 
Purgatory. 

Indulgences  have  many  advantages.  They  blot  out 
temporal  punishment,  not  merely  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Church,  but  before  God.  This  follows  as  a  corollary 
from  the  power  of  granting  them.  If  by  virtue  of  that 
power  every  obstacle  to  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  can  be 
removed,  it  is  clear,  temporal  punishment  is  really  re- 
mitted before  God.  They  do  not  discountenance  acts 
of  penance  and  mortification.  Usually,  Sacramental 
Penance  is  not  enough  to  cover  our  liabilities  to  God. 


108  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

Those  are  the  best,  children  of  the  Church  who  avail 
themselves  of  Indulgences.  Besides  being  a  substitute 
for  the  old  canonical  penance  and  blotting  out  tempo- 
rary punishment,  Indulgences  are  a  corrective  and  a 
preventive ;  they  encourage  to  repentance ;  they  in- 
duce people  to  do  good  works  ;  they  promote  frequent 
recourse  to  the  Sacraments  of  Penance  and  the  Eucha- 
rist. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THEOLOGY  OF  THE  DEVOTION  TO  THE 
SACKED  HEART. 

"AY  is  the  month  of  the  Virgin  Mother ;  June,  of 
-^-1  devotion  to  the  Sacred  Heart  of  her  divine  Son. 
Doctrine  leads  to  devotion.  Theology,  as  a  science,  may 
exist  without  religion,  but  religion  can  not  hold  its 
ground  without  theology.  The  consideration  now  of 
this  holy  subject,  now  of  that,  calls  forth  attention  and 
piety.  Christ's  desire  to  be  loved  by  men  is  ardent  and 
intense.  Deeper  and  more  boundless  than  the  ocean  is 
the  love  of  the  Sacred  Heart  of  Jesus  for  mankind. 

In  the  history  of  His  Passion,  as  recorded  in  the 
sacred  narrative,  we  read  :  "  But  one  of  his  soldiers  with 
a  spear  opened  his  side,  and  immediately  there  came 
out  blood  and  water"  (John  xix.  38).  There  is  no 
stronger  testimony  of  the  actuality  of  Christ's  death, 
than  this  issue  of  blood  and  water  from  His  side  ;  and 
it  would  appear  that  the  proximate  cause  was  rupture 
of  the  heart,  the  more  remote  being  crucifixion.  We 
have  the  highest  medical  authority  for  saying  that 
natural  emotions,  when  in  overwhelming  excess,  some- 
times produce  rupture  of  the  heart.  And,  as  Sir  James 
Simpson  points  out,  "  if  ever  a  human  heart  was  riven 
by  the  mere  amount  of  mental  agony  that  was  endured, 
it  would  surely  be  that  of  our  Redeemer."    When  blood 

109 


110  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

is  allowed  to  stand  for  some  time,  it  separates  itself  into 
the  parts  of  which  it  is  composed.  The  principal  ele- 
ments of  human  blood  are  a  colorless  liquid  substance 
like  water,  and  certain  minute  particles  (corpuscles) 
mostly  red,  which  give  color  to  the  blood. 

Assuming  that  Christ  died  of  a  broken  heart,  blood 
flowed  into  the  capsule  or  membraneous  sac  which 
surrounds  it.  Here  being  allowed  to  stand  for  some 
time,  it  resolved  itself  into  the  elements  just  mentioned, 
so  that  when  the  soldier  pierced  our  Lord's  side  there 
flowed  forth  two  substances  :  one  resembling  water,  the 
other,  blood.  Thus  we  can  explain,  in  a  satisfactory 
and  scientific  manner,  the  flow  from  the  side  of  Christ 
as  mentioned  by  the  Evangelist. 

Now,  it  is  this  Sacred  Heart,  a  Heart  literally  broken 
on  the  cross  for  love  of  mankind,  that  we  are  asked  to 
honor  in  a  special  manner  during  the  month  of  June. 
The  object,  therefore,  of  our  veneration  or  cultus  is  the 
Sacred  Heart  of  Jesus ;  in  other  words,  the  Heart  of 
the  Incarnate  Word.  It  is  the  Heart  of  the  God-man, 
hence  a  divine  and  adorable  Heart.  We  adore  it  as  the 
Heart  of  the  Person  of  the  Word  to  which  it  is  insepa- 
rably united.  This  is  the  visible  or  corporal  object ; 
our  veneration  has  also  a  spiritual  one.  The  devotion 
to  the  Five  Wounds,  for  example,  has  for  its  visible 
object  the  Sacred  Wounds  themselves,  and  for  its  spirit- 
ual object,  the  suffering  of  the  Man-God  revealed 
through  them.  Similarly  the  spiritual  object  of  devo- 
tion to  the  Sacred  Heart  is  the  limitless  love  of  Jesus 
for  mankind  as  made  known  through  it. 

The  end  proposed  in  venerating  the  Sacred  Heart,  is 
to  gain  a  return  of  love  for  Christ's  boundless  affection, 
and  to  make  up  in  some  way  for  the  coldness  and 
ingratitude  of  the  greater  part  of  mankind. 


DEVOTION   TO   THE   SACRED   HEART.  Ill 

The  highest  form  of  worship  is  due  to  it.  Hence 
we  venerate  the  Sacred  Heart  with  a  veneration  differ- 
ent from  and  greater  than  that  which  we  give  to  the 
Virgin  Mary.  It  is  the  same  as  that  due  to  the  Father, 
the  same  as  that  due  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  same  as 
that  due  to  the  Blessed  Trinity. 

The  motives  of  our  veneration  to  the  Sacred  Heart 
are  manifold.  Making  use  of  the  popular  idea  that  the 
heart  is  the  seat  of  love,  Christ  proposes  to  us  His 
Sacred  Heart  as  the  seat  of  His  pious  affections.  These 
He  wishes  us  to  accept  and  imitate,  for  He  says:  " Learn 
of  me,  because  I  am  meek  and  humble  of  heart" 
(Matt.  xi.  29).  By  the  unanimous  consent  of  men, 
and  the  universal  usage  of  speech,  consecrated  by  Scrip- 
tural custom,  the  heart  is  the  symbol  of  love  ;  therefore 
the  Heart  of  Jesus  is  the  symbol  of  His  burning  love 
and  ardent  charity  by  which  He  endured  so  much  to 
redeem  us,  and  instituted  the  Sacrament  of  His  love 
for  us.  A  third  motive  is,  as  the  Sacred  Heart  is  the 
symbol  of  Christ's  love  for  us,  it  reminds  us  of  His  suf- 
ferings and  death,  and  brings  a  certain  pressure  upon  us 
to  return  affection  for  the  countless  benefits  for  which 
we  are  indebted  to  Him. 

As  there  are  two  natures,  two  wills,  two  intelligences 
in  Christ,  so  in  a  certain  sense  we  may  say  there  are 
two  hearts.  In  the  Book  of  Genesis  we  read  that  when 
the  Lord  beheld  the  wickedness  of  man,  He  was 
touched  with  sorrow  of  heart.  David  is  spoken  of  as  a 
man  after  God's  own  heart.  Thus  is  the  language  of 
man  used  by  the  inspired  writer,  and  the  sanctity 
and  love  of  God  spoken  of  under  the  symbol  of  the 
heart.  This  is  the  eternal  heart  of  God.  The  Heart 
of  Jesus  is  a   Heart  of  flesh,  a  Heart  formed  from 


112  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

Mary  Immaculate,  a  symbol,  if  you  will,  for  it  best 
symbolizes  the  love  of  Jesus  for  humanity ;  but  it  is 
much  more  than  this,  it  is  also  a  reality. 

In  the  schools  of  Theology,  where  doctrine  is  gener- 
ally stated  in  conservative  form,  the  teaching  on  the 
present  subject  is  stated  in  these  words  :  the  venera- 
tion of  the  Sacred  Heart,  as  approved  by  the  Holy 
See  and  practised  in  the  Catholic  Church,  is  pious  and 
free  from  every  stain  of  superstition.  It  is  not  pro- 
posed as  an  article  of  Catholic  Faith ;  it  is  put  forward 
as  a  doctrine  which  is  certain,  which  none  but  the  rash 
will  reject,  which  can  not  be  set  aside  without  danger 
of  heresy,  and  therefore  without  mortal  sin. 

The  foundation  of  all  doctrines  which  depend  on  the 
Incarnation  is  to  be  sought  in  the  union  of  the  Divine 
Word  with  human  nature.  The  principle  on  which 
our  adoration  of  the  Sacred  Heart  rests,  is  as  old  as  the 
belief  in  the  hypostatic  union.  And  even  if  it  be  said 
that  devotion  to  the  Sacred  Heart  actually  began  with 
the  Blessed  Margaret  Mary  Alacoque  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
though  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  does  not  change, 
yet,  from  time  to  time,  she  introduces  new  forms  of 
devotion. 

Although  there  are  two  natures,  two  wills,  and  two 
intelligences  in  Jesus  Christ,  yet  there  is  in  Him  but 
one  person,  and  that  is  the  Divine.  In  his  letter  to  the 
Philippians,  St.  Paul  writes  :  "  For  let  this  mind  be  in 
you,  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus ;  Who,  being  in 
the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal 
with  God  :  But  emptied  himself,  taking  the  form  of  a 
servant,  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,  and  in 
habit  found  as  a  man.     He  humbled  himself,  becoming 


DEVOTION   TO   THE  SACRED   HEART.  113 

obedient  even  unto  death  :  even  to  the  death  of  the 
cross.  For  which  cause  God  also  hath  exalted  him, 
and  hath  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  all  names  : 
That  in  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of 
those  that  are  in  heaven,  on  earth,  or  under  the  earth" 
(ii.  5-10).  In  the  first  part  of  this  extract  the  actions 
of  the  Divine  nature  in  Jesus  are  attributed  to  one  per- 
son, and  that  the  Divine  one.  In  the  second  part,  the 
actions  of  Christ's  human  nature  are  attributed  to  the 
same  Divine  person.  Hence  human  nature  in  Christ 
has  no  personality,  so  that  all  the  acts  of  the  Man, 
Christ,  can  be  said  to  be  done  by  God.  The  humanity 
of  Christ  never  had  personality,  and  therefore  never 
lost  it.  It  was  united  to  the  Divine  personality  from 
the  first  instant  of  conception.  By  virtue  of  this  union, 
the  face  which  men  saw  nearly  nineteen  hundred  years 
ago,  when  Christ  was  on  earth,  was  the  face  of  God ; 
and  the  words  of  consolation  addressed  to  the  penitent 
Magdalene,  were  the  words  of  God  ;  and  the  feet  that 
poor  Mary  kissed  in  her  passionate  repentance  were  the 
feet  of  God ;  and  the  brow  that  was  bedecked  with  a  crown 
of  thorns  was  the  brow  of  God  ;  and  the  hands  and  the 
feet  that  were  pierced  with  the  nails  on  that  ugly  hill 
were  the  hands  and  the  feet  of  God  ;  and  the  side  that 
was  opened  by  the  spear  of  the  soldier  was  the  side  of 
God  ;  and  the  blood  that  was  shed  for  the  redemption  of 
the  human  race  was  the  blood  of  God  ;  and  the  heart 
which  was  broken  on  the  cross  was  the  heart  of  God  ; 
because  the  whole  humanity  which  was  assumed  by 
the  Second  Person  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  was  the 
humanity  of  God.  We  can  now  understand  why 
supreme  adoration  is  due  to  the  Sacred  Heart  of  Jesus. 
The  reason  is,  because  the  Sacred  Heart  of  Jesus  is  the 


114  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

Sacred  Heart  of  God.  As  such  it  calls  for  that  highest 
homage  which  we  give  to  God  alone.  By  virtue  of  the 
hypostatic  union,  the  Second  Person  of  the  adorable 
Trinity  is  united  to  the  humanity  of  Christ  and  to 
every  part  of  that  humanity,  such  as  the  human  soul 
is  united  to  the  body  and  to  every  part  of  that  body. 
Nor  can  the  humanity  of  Christ  be  separated  from  His 
Divinity.  If  it  were  separated  it  would  no  longer  be 
the  humanity  of  Christ,  but  something  else.  Neither 
can  the  Sacred  Heart  be  separated  from  the  Divinity, 
and  if  it  were  separated,  it  would  cease  to  be  the  Sacred 
Heart  of  Jesus. 

There  are  reasons  for  directing  our  veneration  to  the 
Sacred  Heart.  The  Incarnate  Word  presents  Himself 
to  be  adored  in  His  human  nature.  The  Sacred  Heart 
of  Jesus — a  Heart  holy  with  the  sanctity  of  the  Word,  as 
well  as  with  the  sacredness  of  a  noble  soul — is  the  noblest 
part  of  the  Divine  humanity,  and  as  such  is  worthy  of 
special  reverence.  Although  when  venerating  the  Sacred 
Heart  we  venerate  the  Divine  personality,  yet  the  Heart 
of  Jesus  is  singled  out,  because  it  is  the  Heart  of  God, 
and  because  it  symbolizes  Christ's  love  for  our  race.  It 
is  the  object  of  our  love  ;  it  is  the  symbol  of  His. 

The  testimony  of  the  Fathers  of  the  early  Church 
must  be  of  interest  to  us  on  this  question,  especially  as 
devotion  to  the  Sacred  Heart  did  not  reach  its  full 
development  until  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  St.  Augustine,  the  great  African  saint,  the 
champion  of  pure  Christianity  in  his  time,  writes  :  "  O 
Heart,  fountain  of  living  waters,  let  me  drink  and 
rejoice;  Longinus  has  opened  for  me  the  side  of  Jesus." 
St.  Bonaventura  also  says  :  "  In  the  side  of  Jesus  I  wish 
to  rest,  there  I  will  speak  to  His  Heart,  and  obtain  from 


DEVOTION   TO  THE  SACRED   HEART.  115 

Him  what  I  wish."  The  key  to  understand  the  venera- 
tion of  the  Sacred  Heart  is,  that  in  Christ  there  is  one 
Divine  Person,  and  there  are  two  natures — the  human 
and  the  divine.  "  This,"  as  the  Fathers  of  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon  said,  "  is  the  doctrine  of  our  forefathers." 
Though  absorbed  in  the  glory  of  the  divinity,  the 
Sacred  Heart  still  preserves  its  character  of  humanity. 
It  is  therefore  a  Heart  possessing  human  sympathy,  as 
was  shown  at  the  gates  of  Nairn  and  at  the  tomb  of 
Lazarus.  It  longs  to  kindle  on  earth  the  fire  of  Divine 
love,  to  move  men  to  a  larger  understanding  and  to  a 
more  mutual  brotherhood.  Its  sympathy  reaches  to 
the  poor  outcast,  for  Christ  came  to  bring  back  sinners 
to  His  Father.  It  is  a  Heart  full  of  gratitude,  for  not 
even  a  sup  of  cold  water  is  given  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
without  a  recognition  and  a  reward  from  that  grateful 
Heart.  Imitation  is  the  sincerest  tribute.  It  is  impossi- 
ble to  estimate  how  much  better  the  world  would  be  if 
the  adoration,  which  our  theology  teaches  us  is  due  to 
the  Sacred  Heart,  were  given  in  the  form  of  imitation — 
by  copying  its  gentleness,  its  patience,  its  sympathy,  its 
desire  of  universal  brotherhood. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

VENERATION  OF  THE  BLESSED  VIRGIN. 

BY  veneration  we  acknowledge  the  superior  excellence 
of  another,  and  show  our  respect  because  of  it. 
Tlje  motive  of  all  veneration  is  excellence.  As  there 
are  various  species  of  the  latter,  so  does  veneration  vary 
accordingly.  Excellence  or  worth,  may  be  infinite  and 
eternal,  as  it  is  in  God  and  in  Him  alone.  It  may  be 
merely  created,  but  supernatural,  such  as  the  saints 
possess  ;  or  there  may  be  question  of  natural  worth,  as 
genius,  learning,  bravery,  and  the  like.  If  the  worth 
be  infinite  and  eternal,  then  the  highest  form  of  cult  is 
due.  This  is  given  to  God  and  to  Him  alone.  If  we 
speak  of  created  but  supernatural  worth,  then  the 
veneration  of  saints  has  a  place.  When  the  excellence 
is  no  more  than  natural  and  created  greatness,  such  as 
sublime  poets,  or  soul-stirring  orators,  or  brave  soldiers 
can  claim,  then  we  give  civil  or  social  veneration. 
Supernatural  and  natural  greatness  belong  to  different, 
but  not  conflicting  orders ;  the  one  occupying  a  high 
plane,  the  other  a  lower.  The  former  leads  to  life 
eternal ;  the  latter,  whilst  good  and  to  be  admired,  has 
no  positive  relationship  to  the  object  of  life. 

Yet  another  distinction.  We  claim  for  the  Virgin  an 
excellence  beyond  all  other  created  beings,  except  the 
human  soul  of  Jesus.     On  account  of  this  a  higher  form 

116 


VENERATION   OP  THE   BLESSED   VIRGIN.  117 

of  veneration  is  due  to  her  than  to  the  other  saints* 
Let  it,  however,  be  distinctly  understood  that  it  is  very 
different  from  the  honor  we  give  to  God.  The  motive 
is  different.  In  the  one  case  it  is  excellence  infinite 
and  eternal ;  in  the  other  it  is  supernatural  and  super- 
eminent,  but  withal,  created  greatness.  The  species  of 
veneration  is  different  in  kind  ;  it  differs  only  in  degree 
from  that  given  to  the  other  saints.  God  alone  we 
adore  with  the  supremest  form  of  worship.  To  the 
Almighty  alone  we  are  permitted  to  offer  the  Holy 
Sacrifice,  for  it  is  the  highest  act  of  adoration.  Not  to 
the  saints,  nor  to  the  Virgin  Mary  can  the  Mass  be 
offered,  but  we  may  commemorate  their  memory  and 
have  the  Holy  Sacrifice  offered  in  their  honor,  that  they 
who  have  gone  before  us  may  intercede  for  us  before 
God's  throne.  To  give  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  the  worship 
which  belongs  to  the  Almighty  is  to  be  guilty  of  idolatry 
—a  most  grievous  sin.  The  difference  between  the 
Creator  and  the  created,  however  gifted  and  privileged 
the  latter  may  be,  must  ever  remain  infinite  ;  and,  there- 
fore, there  must  ever  be  an  essential  difference  between 
the  adoration  of  God  and  the  veneration  of  Mary. 

The  veneration  of  the  saints,  and  therefore  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin,  is  lawful  and  useful.  This  is  our  thesis 
and  is  Catholic  doctrine.  The  following  are  our  proofs  : 
Civic  honors  may  lawfully  and  laudably  be  given  to 
heroes.  Reason  and  Scripture  prove  it.  In  all  times 
there  has  been  a  unanimity  of  consent  regarding  it ;  so 
much  so,  that  those  who  refuse  to  do  honor  to  men 
who  have  deserved  well  of  the  community  are  justly 
considered  malevolent.  The  memory  of  our  own  Wash- 
ington is  honored  in  many  ways.  His  birthday  is  kept 
as  a  national  holiday,  pilgrimages  are  made  to  his  last 


118  KATIONAL  RELIGION. 

resting-place  on  the  banks  of  the  Potomac,  mementoes 
and  relics  are  sought  with  the  greatest  eagerness, 
monuments  proclaim  his  deeds  of  bravery.  Cicero  (De 
Natura  Deorum)  says  :  "  Whoso  excels  has  a  claim  to 
just  veneration."  God's  word  confirms  this  popular  idea: 
"  Render  therefore  to  all  men  their  dues  *  *  *  * 
to  whom  honor,  honour  "  (Rom.  xiii.  7).  Further  evidence 
is  given  in  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy  :  "  Let 
the  priests  that  rule  well  be  esteemed  worthy  of  a 
double  honor,  especially  they  who  labor  in  the  word 
and  doctrine"  (v.  17).  The  only  reason  that  is  or  can 
be  assigned  for  such  honor,  is  that  its  recipients  excel  in 
some  way.  If  superiority  in  some  walk  in  life  entitles 
a  man  to  civic  honor,  surely  on  the  same  principle, 
heroic  sanctity  should  entitle  him  to  religious  venera- 
tion. 

God  honors  the  saints  and  angels.  The  Old  Law 
was  promulgated  directly  by  them,  or  by  Almighty 
God,  with  the  angels  as  assistant  ministers.  "Who 
have  received  the  law  by  the  disposition  of  the  angels  " 
(Acts  vii.  53).  Whichever  interpretation  we  give 
these  words,  they  are  proof  of  an  honor  conferred  by 
God.  Christ  will  come  with  His  angels  and  judge  the 
world,  and  thus  will  pay  them  a  high  tribute  of  respect. 
The  parts  of  the  Scripture  which  tell  us  the  glory  and 
bliss  of  the  saints  in  Heaven  are  so  much  evidence  that 
God  honors  them.  Universal  usage  explains  the  mean- 
ing of  all  this.  When  a  ruler  honors  a  subject  it  is 
clear  he  means  others  likewise  to  respect  him ;  so,  when 
God  honors  the  saints  and  makes  that  known  to  us 
through  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  we  reasonably  infer 
that  He  wishes  us  also  to  venerate  them.  A  confirma- 
tion of  this  is  found  in  the  Canticle  of  the  Blessed 


VENERATION   OF  THE   BLESSED  VIRGIN.  119 

Virgin,  the  Magnificat.  There  we  are  told  that  God 
made  Mary  great,  and  on  this  account,  all  generations 
shall  call  her  blessed,  in  other  words,  shall  honor  her. 

The  saints  and  angels  pray  for  us,  guard  us,  love 
us,  and  are  interested  in  our  salvation.  "And  the 
smoke  of  the  incense  of  the  prayers  of  the  saints 
ascends  up  before  God  from  the  hand  of  the  angel " 
(Apoc.  viii.  4).  Such  an  offering  of  the  prayers  of  the 
faithful  is  really  intercession  for  us.  That  they  guard 
us  Christ  teaches  in  His  sermon  on  humility  :  "  See 
that  you  despise  not  one  of  these  little  ones,  for  I  say 
to  you  that  their  angels  in  Heaven  always  see  the  face 
of  My  Father,  Who  is  in  Heaven"  (Matt,  xviii.  10).  Their 
love  for  and  interest  in  us  is  proven  from  the  joy  exist- 
ing in  Heaven  before  the  angels  of  God  for  one  repentant 
sinner.  That  they  are  so  well  disposed  towards  us  as  to 
watch  over  us  during  life,  and  to  rejoice  at  our  triumph 
over  sin,  and  to  move  in  our  favor  the  hand  of  Him 
Who  moves  the  universe,  plainly  shows  them  to  be  worthy 
of  veneration.  Every  reason  that  appeals  to  us  in  favor 
of  venerating  the  saints  has  a  greater  force  when  there  is 
question  of  honoring  Mary — the  Queen  of  all  saints. 
And  if  we  give  her  a  veneration  greater  than  that  which 
is  given  to  the  other  saints,  it  is  because  she  excels 
them.  Her  Immaculate  Conception,  her  Virginity,  and 
her  Motherhood  of  God,  secure  a  niche  in  the  fane  of 
sanctity  higher  and  more  conspicuous  than  what  is  due 
to  the  other  saints.  Her  privilege  of  Immaculateness, 
her  gift  of  avoiding  all,  even  venial  faults,  her  long 
life  of  merit,  her  having  united  a  "  mother's  love  with 
maiden  purity,'1  prepare  us  to  hear  her  blessedness  so 
frequently  mentioned  in  the  Gospel.  When  we  read 
the  salute  of  Gabriel,  "  Hail,  full  of  Grace,"  and  find 


120  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

old  age  paying  tribute  to  her  as  in  the  Elizabethan 
address, "  Blessed  art  thou  among  women  ;"  and  learn 
that  she  is  the  subject  of  saintly  panegyric  clearly 
marking  out  her  position  beyond  the  other  saints  ;  we 
realize  the  grand  fitness  of  the  teaching  that  her  honor 
should  be  greater  than  theirs.  All  our  veneration  con- 
densed would  not  equal  even  one  of  the  countless  acts 
of  honor  done  by  Jesus  to  Mary  when  He  went  down 
to  Nazareth  and  "  was  subject  to  them." 

St.  Thomas  of  Aquin  says,  her  sanctity  is  everything 
but  infinite,  and  Suarez,  the  great  Spanish  theologian 
whose  holiness  equaled  his  learning,  teaches  that  Mary 
possessed  more  sanctity  than  all  the  other  saints  and 
angels  together.  St.  Ephraim,  the  brightest  ornament 
of  the  Oriental  Church  in  the  fourth  century,  uses  the 
following  language  in  reference  to  Mary — words  par- 
ticularly striking  in  that  they  are  the  very  terms  which 
the  Church  of  the  present  day  makes  use  of  in  order  to 
express  the  supereminent  sanctity  of  the  Mother  of 
God.  "We  fly  to  thy  patronage,  holy  Mother  of  God  ; 
protect  and  guard  us  under  the  wings  of  thy  mercy 
and  kindness.  Most  merciful  God,  through  the  inter- 
cession of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  and  of  all  the 
angels  and  saints,  show  pity  to  thy  creatures.  In  thee, 
Patroness  and  Mediatrix  with  God,  Who  was  born 
from  thee,  the  human  race,  O  Mother  of  God,  placeth 
its  joy,  and  is  ever  dependent  upon  thy  patronage,  and 
in  thee  alone  hath  refuge  and  defense,  who  hast  full 
confidence  in  Him.  *  *  *  After  the  Trinity  thou 
art  mistress  of  all ;  after  the  Paraclete,  another  para- 
clete ;  after  the  Mediator,  mediatrix  of  the  whole 
world." 

"  How  little,"  writes  St.  Bonaventura,  "  can  we  do  in 


VENERATION    OF   THE   BLESSED   VIRGIN.  121 

honor  of  Mary,  since  if  all  our  members  could  become 
tongues,  we  should  be  unable  to  praise  her  as  she 
deserves." 

As  the  sorrows  of  the  Mother  are  reflections  of  the 
sufferings  of  the  Son,  so  the  glories  of  the  Lily  of  Israel 
are  the  advance  shadows  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  We  need  not  fear  that  our  veneration  of 
Mary  deprives  God  the  Father  of  the  honor  which  is 
properly  His,  or  that  our  devotion  to  her  as  Mediatrix 
of  intercession  interferes  with  our  devotion  to  God  the 
Son  as  Mediator  of  redemption.  The  following  beauti- 
ful hymn  to  our  Lady  by  Father  Faber  well  brings  out 
the  idea  : 

"  Mother  of  mercy,  day  by  day 

My  love  of  thee  grows  more  and  more. 
Thy  gifts  are  strewn  upon  my  way 
Like  sands  upon  the  great  seashore. 

*  But  scornful  men  have  coldly  said 
Thy  love  was  leading  me  from  God  ; 
And  yet  in  this  I  did  but  tread 
The  very  path  my  Saviour  trod. 

"  They  knew  but  little  of  thy  worth 

Who  spoke  these  heartless  words  to  me, 
For  what  did  Jesus  love  on  earth 
One  half  so  tenderly  as  thee  ? 

"  Jesus,  when  His  three  hours  were  run, 
Bequeathed  thee  from  the  Cross  to  me  ; 
And  oh  I  how  can  I  love  thy  Son, 
Sweet  Mother !  if  I  love  not  thee?" 

Many  Protestant  writers  have  drawn  inspiration 
from  contemplating  the  beauties  of  the  Virgin.  Edgar 
Allen  Poe  invokes  her  continuous  protection  in  the 
words  : 


122  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

"  At  morn— at  noon— at  twilight  dim- 
Maria  !  thou  hast  heard  my  hymn  ! 
In  joy  and  woe— in  good  and  ill- 
Mother  of  God,  be  with  me  still !" 

The  sweet  name  of  Mary  has  brought  forth  from 
Keble,  of  the  Christian    Year,  the  following  beautiful 

tribute  : 

"Ave  Maria  !  thou  whose  name 
All  but  adoring  love  can  claim, 
Yet  may  we  reach  thy  shrine  ; 
For  He,  thy  Son  and  Saviour,  vows 
To  crown  all  lowly,  lofty  brows 
With  love  and  joy  like  thine." 

Even  Byron,  the  greatest  of  our  descriptive  poets, 
though  much  wrapped  up  in  the  contemplation  of  his 
own  ugly  self,  yet  found  time  to  say  of  the  Immaculate 
Queen  of  Heaven : 

"Ave  Maria  !  'tis  the  hour  of  prayer  ! 
Ave  Maria  !  'tis  the  hour  of  love  1 
Ave  Maria  !  my  own  spirits  dare 
Look  up  to  thine  and  to  thy  Son  above !" 

Here  is  how  Mrs.  Hemans  writes  of  the  Handmaid 
of  the  Lord : 

"  For  such  high  tidings  as  to  thee  were  brought, 
Chosen  of  Heaven  !  that  hour,  but  thou,  O  thou  ! 
E'en  as  a  flower  with  gracious  rains  o'er  fraught, 

Thy  virgin  head  beneath  its  crown  didst  bow 
And  take  to  thy  meek  breast  th'  all  holy  Word, 
And  own  thyself  the  Handmaid  of  the  Lord !" 

Longfellow,  the  sweet  singer  of  domestic  affection, 
had  too  much  soul  in  him  not  to  be  enthused  by  the 
lowly  greatness  of  the  Virgin  Mother.    He  writes  : 


VENERATION  OF  THE   BLESSED   VIRGIN.  123 

"  This  is  indeed  the  Blessed  Virgin's  land, 
Virgin  and  mother  of  our  dear  Redeemer  ! 

All  hearts  are  touched  and  softened  at  her  name, 
Alike  the  bandit  with  the  bloody  hand, 

The  priest,  the  prince,  the  scholar  and  the  peasant. 
The  man  of  deeds,  the  visionary  dreamer 

Pay  homage  to  her  as  one  ever  present !" 

Poetry  and  art,  history  and  literature,  pay  their 
tributes  to  the  Virgin ;  let  us  give  her  that  religious 
veneration  which  so  justly  belongs  to  her. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION. 

THE  Canticle  of  Canticles,  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and 
poetic  compositions  in  the  whole  inspired  book,  repre- 
sents the  love  of  Christ  for  His  Church— for  that  Church 
whose  brow  time  can  not  wrinkle — and  the  Liturgy 
applies  this  song  of  Solomon  to  Mary  as  the  most  per- 
fect member  of  that  Church ;  to  her  whose  love  for 
God  is  the  most  ardent,  and  who  is  the  object  of  God's 
own  tenderest  affection.  The  words  of  the  Canticle, 
"  Who  is  she  that  cometh  forth  as  the  morning  rising, 
fair  as  the  moon,  bright  as  the  sun?"  (Canticle  of  Can- 
ticles vi.  9),  convey  the  highest  idea  of  brilliancy  ;  for 
they  represent  her  as  coming  into  being  fair  as  the 
fairest  thing  that  the  human  mind  can  conjure  up, — as 
the  morning  rising,  fair  as  the  moon,  bright  as  the  sun. 
It  is  with  her  brilliant  entry  into  life,  not  with  her  vir- 
ginity, not  with  her  privileged  avoidance  of  sin,  not  with 
her  long  life  of  merit,  not  even  with  her  motherhood 
of  God,  that  we  are  here  concerned.  It  matters  not, 
says  a  certain  noted  preacher,  whence  we  come,  but  it 
matters  a  great  deal  whither  we  are  going.  It  matters 
to  us  a  great  deal  whence  and  how  Mary  came  ;  it  mat- 
ters to  us  a  great  deal  to  get  a  firm  grasp  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Immaculate  Conception. 

And   first   of  all,   what  is  of  faith  concerning  the 
Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ?    "  It  is  a 

124 


THE   IMMACULATE  CONCEPTION.  125 

dogma  of  faith,"  says  the  Bull,  defining  this  doctrine, 
"  that  the  Most  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  in  the  first  instant 
of  her  conception,  by  a  singular  privilege  and  grace  of 
God,  in  virtue  of  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour 
of  the  human  race,  was  preserved  from  original  sin." 
This  proposition  in  itself  and  in  all  its  parts  is  an  article 
of  Catholic  faith.  As  day  excludes  night,  as  light 
excludes  darkness,  so  in  order  to  understand  immacu. 
lateness  we  must  recall  to  mind  something  of  the  nature 
and  the  effects  of  original  sin.  Our  first  parent,  the 
gardener  Adam,  as  Tennyson  calls  him,  though  consti- 
tuted in  original  justice  and  endowed  with  many  other 
gifts,  such  as  infused  knowledge,  immortality,  felicity, 
and  freedom  from  certain  temptations,  yet  gravely 
violated  the  one  and  only  commandment  imposed  upon 
him  by  Almighty  God.  He  sinned  as  representative  of 
the  human  family,  and  as  such  transmitted  his  sin, 
with  all  its  ghastly  train  of  evil  consequences,  includ- 
ing the  loss  of  those  benefits  with  which  God  had 
favored  him,  to  all  posterity.  Hence  we  are  children 
of  a  fallen  race,  stamped  with  the  brand  of  Satan  in  our 
very  conception,  bearing  the  sad  heritage  of  original  sin 
and  its  baneful  evils,  instead  of  original  justice  and  its 
accompanying  beauties.  For  the  nature  of  original  sin 
is  the  privation  from  the  gaining  of  that  sanctifying 
grace  and  justice  which  ought  to  be  ours  according  to 
the  order  appointed  by  God.  And  its  effects  are  con- 
cupiscence, disease,  a  clouded  intellect,  a  will  shorn  of 
its  strength,  and  a  tendency  to  the  vast  and  varied  kinds 
of  evil.  But  there  is  one  honorable  exception,  one  lily 
among  the  thorns,  as  some  writers  love  to  express  it, 
not  because  she  was  freed  from  original  sin  by  Baptism, 
as  we  ordinary  mortals  are;  not  because  she  was  sancti- 


126  RATIONAL  RELIGION. 

fied  whilst  yet  unborn,  as  was  St.  John  the  Baptist ;  but 
because  she  was  preserved  earlier  still,  namely,  from 
the  very  moment  of  her  conception  ;  or  in  other  words, 
when  the  human  soul  was  united  to  the  body.  She 
was  the  daughter  of  a  fallen  race,  and  as  such  was  liable 
to  have  contracted  original  sin,  and  it  was  by  a  singular 
privilege  and  grace  of  God  that  she  was  exempted  from 
the  common  doom.  For  the  sake  of  Him  that  was  to 
be  born  of  her,  and  for  "  His  merits  foreseen,"  grace  was 
poured  into  her  soul  at  the  first  moment  of  its  being. 
He  who  redeemed  us  redeemed  her.  Yet  her  sinless- 
ness  differed  vastly  from  the  sinlessness  of  the  human 
soul  of  Jesus.  Bossuet  points  out  the  difference. 
Addressing  Christ  he  says :  "  Thou  are  innocent  by 
nature,  Mary  by  grace ;  thou  by  excellence,  she  only 
by  privilege  ;  thou  as  Redeemer,  she  as  the  first  of 
those  whom  thy  precious  blood  has  purified." 

This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Conception. 
There  is  nothing  in  it  to  shock  the  sensibilities  of  any- 
body. There  is  everything  in  it  to  recommend  it  to 
the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  faithful.  There  is  nothing 
in  it  to  justify  or  even  to  give  a  shadow  of  excuse  for 
those  sayings  of  men  in  high  places,  that  the  latter-day 
extravagant  assumptions  of  the  Catholic  Church  are 
intolerable,  or,  as  Frederic  Harrison,  the  arch-apostle 
of  materialism,  declares,  that  her  doctrines  are  outside 
the  pale  of  legitimate  discussion.  There  is  nothing  in  it 
to  show  cause  for  that  mighty  clamor  raised,  as  though 
the  social  fabric  were  shaken  to  its  very  center,  when 
Pius  the  Ninth,  on  the  morning  of  the  8th  of  December, 
1854,  defined  the  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Concep- 
tion— a  furor  kept  up  until  it  was  diverted  by  a  more 
important  definition,  the  dogma  of  Papal  Infallibility. 


THE   IMMACULATE   CONCEPTION.  127 

It  is  well  to  be  able  to  give  a  reason  for  the  faith 
that  is  in  us.  The  Scripture  oracles  tell  us,  at  least 
impliedly,  of  Mary's  immaculateness  even  to  her  con- 
ception. "  I  will  put  enmities,"  says  God,  addressing 
the  serpent,"  between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  thy  seed 
and  her  seed;  she  shall  crush  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt 
lie  in  wait  for  her  heel"  (Gen.  iii.  15).  The  woman 
spoken  of  in  this  passage  is  Mary,  the  seed  of  the  woman 
is  Jesus,  the  serpent  is  Satan,  and  the  seed  of  the  serpent 
is  sin.  The  enmity  spoken  of  is  not  a  mere  passing 
one.  There  was  no  cessation  or  shadow  of  cessation  of 
hostilities  between  the  parties  engaged  in  the  conflict. 
The  war  is  still  being  waged,  and  will  and  must  go  on 
to  the  very  end.  And  as  it  goes  on  to  the  end,  so,  on 
the  other  hand,  does  it  extend  back  to  the  beginning. 
But  if  there  ever  was  a  time  when  Mary  was  stained 
even  with  original  sin,  then  these  hostilities  would  have 
ceased,  Mary  would  have  been  found  in  the  camp  of 
the  enemy,  and  the  Scripture  would  have  been  falsified. 
"I  will  put  enmities  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed," 
continues  the  voice  of  God.  No  one  will  deny  that  the 
enmity  between  Mary's  offspring,  that  is,  Jesus  Christ, 
and  Satan's  offspring,  that  is,  sin,  was  perpetual  and 
absolute ;  yet  the  very  same  hostility  existed  between 
Mary  and  Satan,  which  could  not  have  been  the  case  if 
she  were  soiled  by  sin  even  for  a  moment. 

This  glorious  and  complete  triumph  of  the  Virgin 
over  Satan  by  the  merits  of  her  Son,  was  promised  by 
God  shortly  after  the  fall  of  our  first  parents,  and  was 
proclaimed  and  typified  in  many  ways.  A  type  of  her 
immaculateness  is  seen  in  the  Ark  of  Noah  that  escaped 
the  common  shipwreck,  in  the  garden  fenced  round 
about  that  can  suffer  no  injury,  in  that  bright  city  of 


128  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

God  whose  foundations  are  in  the  Holy  Mountains. 
11  Blessed  art  thou  amongst  women,"  are  words  addressed 
to  her  long  ago  on  a  very  memorable  occasion.  Such 
words  would  have  been  misused  if  she  were  so  far 
inferior  to  Eve  as  original  sin  is  to  original  justice. 

The  name,  "Full  of  Grace,"  is  her  distinguishing 
and  peculiar  title,  such  as  our  Saviour  is  called  the 
Just  One,  or  Solomon  the  Wise  One.  It  is  true  that 
the  phrase,  "  Full  of  Grace,"  is  applied  to  our  Lord  by 
St.  John,  and  to  St.  Stephen  by  St.  Paul,  but  this  plen- 
itude of  grace  must  be  understood,  having  due  regard 
to  persons.  The  plenitude  of  grace  in  Christ  is  the  full- 
ness of  an  inexhaustible  fountain;  in  Mary,  it  is  the  full- 
ness of  a  great  river  near  the  source;  in  St.  Stephen,  it  is 
the  fullness  required  for  him  as  a  minister  and  witness 
of  God;  in  all  others,  it  is  the  fullness  of  sufficiency,  the 
rivulets  sharing  it  in  a  limited  degree,  yet  enough  to 
procure  the  salvation  of  all.  As  applied  to  Mary,  it  is 
the  fullness  of  grace  proportionate  to  her  dignity  of 
being  the  Mother  of  God.  There  is  no  limit  to  the 
period  past,  and  hence  in  her  it  implies  that  she  was  full 
of  grace  from  the  very  first  moment  of  her  conception. 

One  may  dispute  the  meaning  or  question  the  appli- 
cation of  a  text,  or  the  authenticity  of  a  word,  but  there 
is  no  room  for  dispute  and  no  opportunity  for  cavil  in 
the  unanimity  with  which  the  Fathers  of  the  Church 
have  held  and  taught  the  Immaculate  Conception,  and 
that  at  a  time  when  all  admitted  that  she  was  the  One 
Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church.  So  that,  if  we 
find  the  early  Fathers  of  the  Church  teaching  the 
Immaculate  Conception,  and  in  a  way  which  furnishes 
us  with  grounds  for  believing  that  the  doctrine  is  coeval 
with  the  foundation  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  it  is  hardly 


THE   IMMACULATE   CONCEPTION.  129 

fair  to  say  that  it  was  heard  of  for  the  first  time  in  the 
middle  ages.  One  class-  of  Fathers  expounds  the  words 
of  Genesis,  "  I  will  put  enmities  between  thee  and 
the  woman,"  etc.,  as  clearly  pointing  out  immunity  from 
original  sin  on  the  part  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

Another  class  is  composed  of  those  who,  from  explain- 
ing the  Angelic  Salutation,  "  Hail,  full  of  Grace  !  "  show 
that  what  is  healed  in  us  by  Baptism  is  stopped  in  Mary 
by  privilege.  To  this  class  belongs  St.  John  Damascene, 
who  writes  :  "  Hail,  truly  full  of  grace,  hail,  since  thou 
art  holier  than  the  angels,  and  more  illustrious  than  the 
archangels.  Hail,  full  of  grace,  who  art  superior  to  the 
principalities,  sablimer  than  the  powers,  more  beautiful 
than  the  seraphim,  higher  than  the  heavens,  purer  than 
the  sun  which  we  look  upon." 

A  third  class  teaches  it  not  in  express  terms  but  in 
equivalents,  which  go  to  show  the  independence  and 
truthfulness  of  their  teaching. 

Yet  another  class  of  the  Fathers  shows  this  doctrine 
by  instituting  a  comparison  between  our  first  parents 
and  Mary.  The  comparisons  between  immaculate  earth 
and  the  Immaculate  Virgin,  between  Eve  whilst  yet 
immaculate  or  unstained  by  original  sin  and  the  Blessed 
Virgin  Mary,  between  Eve  before  her  fall  and  Mary  in 
her  office  of  the  Incarnation,  are  almost  commonplaces 
of  patristic  literature  and  theology.  That  she  is  the 
second  Eve,  that  she  untied  the  knot  of  Eve's  disobedi- 
ence, the  builders  of  the  primitive  Church  tell  us  again 
and  again,  so  that  we  may  reasonably  ask  the  question, 
Was  she  not  as  favored  as  Eve  ?  And  she  would  not  be, 
had  she  been  stained  with  original  sin. 

St.  Augustine  and  St.  Jerome  may  be  looked  upon 
as  the  two  great  exponents  in  their  time  of  the  doctrine 


130  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Church  respectively.  The 
former  writes  :  "  By  a  woman,  life,  by  a  woman,  death  ;  " 
whilst  the  latter  expresses  it,  "  Death  by  Eve,  life  by 
Mary."  Perhaps  the  clearest  of  all  patristic  evidence  is 
given  by  St.  Ephraim  :  "  Two  were  made,  simple,  inno- 
cent, perfectly  like  each  other,  Mary  and  Eve,  but 
afterwards  one  became  the  cause  of  our  death,  the  other 
of  our  life."  The  whole  tone  and  trend  of  their  writ- 
ings go  to  show  that  Mary  came  to  undo  the  mischief 
which  Eve  had  done,  and  for  this  it  would  never  do  if 
she  had  been  inferior  to  Eve  in  her  conception,  so  that 
although  Eve  afterwards  fell  and  though  Mary  was  the 
child  of  a  fallen  race,  liable  to  contract  orginal  sin,  yet, 
as  St.  Sedulius  puts  it,  "She  came  all  sinless  from  the 
sinful  stem  of  Eve,  *  *  *  -as  the  rose  springs  from 
the  rugged  thorn." 

There  is  scarcely  any  doctrine  which  the  faithful 
embraced  and  adhered  to  with  such  loving  reverence 
as  that  of  the  Immaculate  Conception.  Although  it 
was  taught  by  the  early  Fathers  of  the  Church,  yet 
there  existed  no  controversy  about  it  until  the  days  of 
St.  Bernard,  the  last  of  the  Fathers.  And  as  discussion 
quickened  investigation,  men  began  to  learn  that  from 
time  immemorial  the  Church  had  been  celebrating  a 
festival  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  ;  that  the  litur- 
gies of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Church  point  to  an 
Immaculate  Mary  ;  that  hymns  had  been  sung  in  honor 
of  the  Immaculate  Conception ;  and  that  panegyrics 
had  been  preached  from  the  earliest  times,  which  sup- 
posed and  declared  this  privilege  in  Mary.  When  we 
consider  that  a  Church,  which  we  hold  and  can  prove 
to  be  infallible,  permitted  and  approved  of  all  this, 
what  more  was  to  be  desired  than  that  the  Church 


THE   IMMACULATE   CONCEPTION.  131 

should  propose  formally  and  solemnly  to  the  faithful  a 
doctrine  which  for  centuries  had  entered  into  her  every- 
day life? 

And  it  is  fitting,  from  whatever  aspect  we  view  the 
question,  that  Mary's  conception  should  have  been 
immaculate.  It  is  fitting,  as  the  great  Mediatrix 
between  sinners  and  God,  that  she  had  never  been  dis- 
pleasing to  Him.  It  is  fitting,  as  crusher  of  the  ser- 
pant's  head,  that  she  had  never  been  under  the  control 
of  Satan.  It  is  fitting,  as  the  cherished  child  of  God 
the  Father,  that  He  should  have  possessed  her  "  from 
the  beginning  of  her  way."  It  is  fitting,  as  Spouse  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  that  she  should  have  been  as  sinless  as 
God  could  create  her.  It  is  eminently  fitting,  as  Mother 
of  Jesus  Christ,  that  she  had  always  been  without  spot  or 
stain.  For  were  it  otherwise,  then  Lucifer  would  have 
had  the  laugh  against  Jesus,  and  could  point  out  that 
things  had  taken  a  strange  turn,  that  a  time  was  when 
the  Virgin  was  nothing  to  be  proud  of,  a  time  was 
when  she  was  fit  company  for  the  demon  himself,  so 
that,  in  order  to  save  the  Son  from  humiliation,  it  was 
necessary  that  the  mother  should  have  been  immac- 
ulate. 

Suppose  we  were  not  aware  of  this  Scriptural  testi- 
mony, and  all  this  overwhelming  evidence  of  the  Fathers, 
and  all  the  ancient  documents,  and  monuments,  and 
liturgies,  and  practices,  which  point  unmistakably  to 
the  belief  of  the  early  Church,  and  all  this  fitness  aris- 
ing from  Mary's  grand  destiny  as  mother  of  Christ,  as 
favorite  child  of  God  the  Father,  and  as  mystic  spouse 
of  God  the  Holy  Ghost  :  yet  the  word  of  the  infallible 
Church  declaring  Mary  to  be  Queen  conceived  with- 
out original  sin,  is  sufficient  for  us. 


132  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

Devotion  to  our  Blessed  Lady  has  a  special  claim  on 
us  here  in  America,  for  it  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the 
spread  of  the  Church.  And  this  is  true  in  a  marked 
manner  of  the  propagation  of  Catholicity  in  this  country. 
A  chapter  of  the  history  of  our  first  missionaries  is  a 
chaplet  of  devotion  to  Mary  Immaculate.  When  our 
own  Marquette  first  conceived  the  idea  of  coming  here, 
he  prayed  long  and  fervently  to  Mary  Immaculate 
that  permission  might  be  given  him  to  come  to  "  that 
populous  pagan  land  through  which  that  mighty  river 
rolled  on  to  the  far  southern  seas." 

It  is  consoling  amidst  the  troubled  waters  of  this 
life,  whether  annoyed  by  things  social,  or  things  domes- 
tic, or  things  political,  that  we  can  always  claim  the 
assistance  of  her  who  is  the  comforter  of  the  afflicted. 
We  should  not  forget  her,  whether  we  live  in  the  sun- 
shine of  this  world's  prosperity,  or  in  the  winter  of  its 
adversity.  We  honor  her  because  an  angel  has  declared 
her  to  be  full  of  grace,  and  preeminently  blessed  among 
women ;  we  honor  her  because  she  is  the  cherished 
child  of  God  the  Father,  the  much-loved  mother  of 
God  the  Son,  made  man  ;  we  honor  her  because'she  is  a 

"  Woman 
Above  all  other  women  glorified, 
Our  tainted  nature's  solitary  boast ; 
Purer  than  foam  on  central  ocean  tost, 
Fairer  than  eastern  skies  at  sunset  strewn 
With  fancied  roses." 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

MIXED    MARRIAGES. 

GOD  addressed  words  of  solemn  warning  to  his  chosen 
people  in  reference  to  marriage.  The  words  are  : 
"  Neither  shalt  thou  make  marriages  with  them.  Thou 
shalt  not  give  thy  daughter  to  his  son,  nor  take  his 
daughter  for  thy  son,  for  she  shall  turn  thy  son  from 
following  Me,  that  he  may  serve  strange  gods,  and  the 
wrath  of  the  Lord  shall  be  kindled,  and  will  quickly 
destroy  thee  "  (Deut.  vii,  3,  4).  The  Jews  were  blessed 
with  the  true  religion  in  their  day,  and  lest  that  religion 
should  be  lost  or  even  dulled  in  their  hearts,  marriage 
with  unbelievers  was  forbidden.  In  other  words,  mixed 
marriages  were  not  allowed.  Any  one  who  believes 
that  life  is  a  serious  business,  and  not  a  time  to  be  frit- 
tered away  on  useless  things,  will  easily  realize  the  all- 
consuming  importance  of-  this  subject.  He  will  easily 
see  that  on  well-assorted  marriages  depends  the  spiritual 
and  temporal  prosperity  of  the  parties  concerned  ;  that 
on  them  depend  the  right  training,  physical  and  men- 
tal, of  the  children ;  the  teaching  of  those  children  to 
be  dutiful  sons  and  daughters,  good  men  and  good 
women,  good  citizens  in  this  life,  and,  eventually,  citi- 
zens of  Heaven.  He  will  see  that  the  future  of  the 
world,  the  well-being  of  society,  the  progress  of  man- 
kind, depend  largely  upon  the  sanctity  of  the  marriage 

133 


134  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

tie.  He  will  understand,  on  the  other  hand,  how  ill- 
assorted  marriages  bring  naught  save  desolation  to  the 
household  ;  blight  to  life's  early  promise  ;  death  to  the 
pleasures  of  life  ;  all  manner  of  woes  to  the  offspring  of 
such  a  union ;  and,  perhaps,  perpetual  ruin  in  the  next 
life.  He  will  see  that  though  marriages  are  popularly 
said  to  be  made  in  Heaven,  some  of  them  bear  the 
impress  of  Satan  upon  them.  I  say  these  things,  not 
for  the  purpose  of  discouraging  marriage,  for  that  might 
be  contrary  to  individual  interests,  contrary  to  the 
interests  of  the  State,  contrary  to  the  interests  of  the 
Church,  contrary  to  the  interests  of  souls  ;  but  I  say  it 
in  order  that  people  may  be  induced  to  use  their  judg- 
ment and  to  exercise  a  caution  in  the  selection  of  a 
partner,  in  some  way  proportionate  to  the  gravity  of 
the  question. 

We  Catholics  look  upon  marriage  as  a  civil  contract, 
that  is,  a  contract  to  be  entered  into  according  to  the 
just  laws  of  the  country,  having  due  regard  for  the  tem- 
poral concerns  of  the  contracting  parties.  We  look 
upon  marriage  as  a  contract  arising  from  the  law  of 
nature,  binding  the  contracting  parties  to  certain  duties 
and  obligations,  and  binding  them  for  life.  We  also 
look  upon  it  as  a  Sacrament  of  the  New  Law,  and,  as 
such,  it  requires  a  careful  preparation,  such  as  people 
make  for  the  reception  of  any  other  Sacrament.  We 
look  upon  marriage  as  binding  the  parties  for  life,  not 
as  a  thing  wherein  one  may  set  the  other  aside,  and 
that,  as  sometimes  happens,  for  a  most  trivial  reason, 
such  as  what  is  euphemistically  called  incompatibility 
of  temper;  not  as  something  wherein  one  may  repu- 
diate the  other,  as  you  throw  away  a  worn-out  hat  or  a 
threadbare  coat ;  we  believe  when  a  Catholic  man  and 


MIXED   MARRIAGES.  135 

a  Catholic  woman  promise  in  the  marriage  ceremony 
to  accept  each  other  till  death  parts  them,  they  mean 
it ;  we  hold  the  teaching  of  Christ  on  the  indissolubility 
of  the  bond  of  Christian  marriage,  as  laid  down  in  His 
Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  we  accept  His  conclusion  con- 
tained in  the  words  :  "What  God  hath  joined  together 
let  no  man  put  asunder"  (Math,  xiv,  6).  We  look 
upon  marriage  as  a  Sacrament,  for  so  the  Church  con- 
sidered it  even  at  a  time  when  all  admitted  her  to  be 
the  one  true  Church ;  so  the  Scriptures  insinuate  and 
the  Fathers  teach  ;  and  the  Council  of  Trent  declares  it 
is  "  truly  and  properly  one  of  the  seven  Sacraments  of 
the  evangelical  law  instituted  by  Christ."  We  look 
upon  it  as  a  holy  Sacrament — holy  in  its  founder,  who 
is  Jesus  Christ ;  holy  in  its  signification,  for  it  is  a  fig- 
ure of  the  union  of  the  Divine  Word  with  human 
nature,  a  hallowed  copy  of  the  union  of  Christ  with 
His  Church,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  with  the  souls  of 
the  just ;  holy  in  its  effects,  which  are  sanctifying  and 
actual  graces ;  holy  in  the  object  of  its  institution, 
which  is  to  multiply  the  children  of  God,  and  bring 
them  to  eternal  salvation.  These  things  being  so,  it  is 
all  the  more  incumbent  on  people  to  follow  the  wisest 
counsels  in  selecting  partners  for  life. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact,  and  admitted  by  all  jurists, 
that  the  Canon  Law — the  law  of  the  Church — is  most 
wise  and  just ;  and  the  chief  excellencies  of  other  codes 
are  to  be  found  when  the  principles  laid  down  in  our 
Canon  Law  have  been  adopted.  To  the  laws  of  our 
Church,  then,  we  have  to  look  for  the  best  course  to  be 
followed  in  reference  to  marriages.  She  has  power  to 
make  laws  for  the  good  government  of  her  subjects 
because  she  is  a  society ;  and,  as  such  has  power  to  govern 


136  RATIONAL  RELIGION. 

her  own  members  j  and  because  Christ  gave  her  all  pow- 
ers necessary,  or  even  useful,  for  the  right  government 
of  a  Christian  commonwealth.  In  the  exercise  of  that 
power,  in  order  to  promote  the  spiritual,  and,  indeed, 
the  temporal  welfare  of  the  children,  she  has  decreed 
that  there  shall  be  certain  impediments  to  matrimony. 
The  law  of  nature  itself,  that  is,  the  law  imprinted  as  it 
were  on  our  hearts,  telling  us  that  certain  things  are  of 
their  own  nature  good,  and  therefdre  ought  to  be  done ; 
and  certain  things  are  inherently  bad,  and  therefore  to 
be  avoided, — this  grand  law,  coming  directly  from  the 
Creator's  hand,  puts  certain  impediments  to  marriage. 
Some  impediments  make  marriage  null  and  void; 
others  render  it  unlawful,  but  not  invalid.  We  are  deal- 
ing with  one  obstacle  only,  and  that  is  the  difference  of 
religion  in  the  contracting  parties. 

For  all  practical  purposes,  we  may  describe  a  mixed 
marriage  to  be  a  marriage  between  a  Catholic  and  a 
non-Catholic,  whether  the  latter  be  baptized  or  unbap- 
tized.  If  there  be  question  of  an  unbaptized  person 
marrying  a  Catholic  without  a  dispensation,  the  mar- 
riage, according  to  the  discipline  of  our  Church,  is  null 
and  void.  If  we  mean  a  marriage  between  a  Catholic 
and  a  non-Catholic  who  is  baptized,  the  marriage  is 
valid,  but  not  lawful,  unless  a  dispensation  be  obtained 
from  the  prohibitory  law. 

A  great  deal  of  misapprehension  obtains  in  refer- 
ence to  mixed  marriages.  Some  seem  to  think  that 
the  opposition  of  the  Church  in  thi3  matter  is  a  new- 
fangled idea,  whereas,  if  there  be  anything  clear  from 
ecclesiastical  history,  it  is  the  stern  opposition  of  the 
Church  in  every  age  against  these  unhallowed  unions. 
Others  imagine,  because  they  have  known  some  cases 


MIXED   MARRIAGES.  137 

of  mixed  marriages  to  have  taken  place  with  ecclesias- 
tical permission,  that  therefore  they  are  unforbidden. 
The  Church  allows  mixed  marriages  in  some  cases 
where  dispensations  from  the  law  have  been  granted 
for  sufficient  reason,  but  in  such  cases,  and  in  such 
only,  does  she  permit  them.  Some  have  an  idea  that 
it  is  altogether  a  matter  of  discretion  for  the  pastor 
whether  he  will  marry  persons  of  different  religions  or 
not.  The  truth  is  this  :  The  pastor  has  not  discretion- 
ary powers.  The  people  are  bound  to  observe  the  laws 
of  the  Church  ;  the  pastor  is  bound  to  see  that  they  do 
observe  them.  We  must  not  be  understood  as  finding 
fault  with  our  Protestant  brethren,  when  we  set  our 
faces  against  mixed  marriages.  Why  should  we  find 
fault  with  those  who  follow  the  dictates  of  conscience? 
We  believe  with  the  late  Dr.  Murray,  of  Maynooth  Col- 
lege, who  spoke  for  the  Protestants  of  Ireland,  and  with 
Cardinal  Newman,  who  gave  his  opinion  in  reference  to 
the  sincerity  of  his  Protestant  fellow  countrymen,  and 
with  Dr.  Libermann,  who  might  be  looked  upon  as  an 
authority  on  German  Protestantism,  that  the  vast 
majority 'of  Protestants  are  in  good  faith,  and  they 
honestly  think  they  are  journeying  by  a  safe  way  to 
Heaven.  But  we  do  find  fault  with  the  Catholic  who 
deliberately  sets  the  laws  of  his  Church  at  defiance,  who 
brings  disgrace  upon  himself  and  upon  his  religion,  and 
far-reaching  misery  upon  his  offspring.  We  say,  as  the 
marriage  of  a  Catholic  with  a  Protestant  is  not  good  for 
the  former,  so  the  marriage  of  a  Catholic  with  a  Protest- 
ant is  not  good  for  the  latter. 

Mixed  marriages  are  forbidden  by  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures. The  whole  drift  of  God's  law  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, on  this  subject,  from  the  sixth  chapter  of  Genesis, 


138  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

where  we  are  told  the  sons  of  Seth  married  the  daughters 
of  Cain,  who  were  unbelievers,  on  to  the  direct  pro- 
hibition in  Deuteronomy,  "  Neither  shalt  thou  make 
marriages  with  them,"  is  one  uncompromising  protest 
against  these  unions.  These  are  forbidden  by  an  ec- 
clesiastical law  which  is  absolute  and  universal.  It  is 
universal,  for  it  extends  to  all  lands  and  Christian 
peoples  ;  it  is  absolute,  for  it  is  enacted  on  the  presump- 
tion that  the  danger  exists,  and  therefore,  according  to 
the  general  principle  of  such  laws,  it  binds  even  when 
one  may  prudently  judge  that  there  is  no  spiritual 
danger  in  a  particular  case;  so  that  even  in  the  absence  of 
all  danger,  a  Catholic  contracting  such  a  marriage  with- 
out a  dispensation  from  the  prohibitory  law,  would  be 
guilty  of  a  grievous  sin. 

Mixed  marriages  are  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nature, 
because  of  the  many  and  dangerous  evils  which  spring 
from  them.  There  is,  first  of  all,  the  danger  of  per- 
version or  loss  of  faith.  This  danger  arises  from  such 
familiar  association  as  must  necessarily  exist  between 
man  and  wife,  from  non-Catholic  books,  from  the  various 
threats,  snares,  entreaties,  flatteries,  that  are  made  use 
of  to  effect  such  a  purpose.  And  if  the  faith  of  the 
Catholic  be  not  always  destroyed,  it  is  sometimes  made 
cold  and  practically  dead. 

The  second  danger  is,  that  the  children  of  such 
a  marriage  may  not  be  brought  up  in  the  Catholic 
Church.  This  is  no  imaginary  danger,  and  everyone 
knows  some  sad  example  of  it.  All  the  circumstances 
of  such  marriages  tend  to  this  result.  The  difficulty 
of  common  prayer,  the  difficulty  of  preserving  Cath- 
olic surroundings  in  the  home,  the  difficulty  as  to 
the  fulfillment  of  religious  duties,  the  evil  example 


MIXED   MARRIAGES.  139 

of  seeing  one  parent  going  to  one  church,  the  other 
to  another,  all  show  how  serious  is  the  danger  which 
threatens  the  faith  of  the  children  of  a  mixed  marriage 

The  third  great  danger  is  that  of  indifference  to 
all  religion.  Mixed  marriages  foster  indifferentism — 
the  great  bane  of  the  age.  They  tend  to  make  people 
forget  the  Divine  Commission, "  preach  the  Gospel  to 
every  creature."  Christ  did  not  mean  that  the  Apostles 
should  preach  any  Gospel  which  their  fancy  might  sug- 
gest, but  He  meant  "  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you . "  They  incline  people  to  the  belief  that  one  religion 
is  as  good  as  another — a  belief  which  is  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  the  old  creed  drawn  up  by  the  Apostles,  in 
which  we  say,  "  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church." 

The  fourth  danger  is  that  of  dissensions  in  the  family 
circle.  For  a  true  Christian  marriage,  grace  should 
meet  grace,  and  Faith  should  be  united  with  Faith. 
Even  the  very  minds  should  be  married,  and  to  the 
union  of  true  minds  there  should  be  no  obstacle.  A 
harmony  of  souls  is  necessary  for  happiness.  There  are 
causes  enough  for  disagreement  between  husband  and 
wife  without  adding  a  needless  one — that  of  difference 
of  religion.  The  man  who,  as  a  wooer,  or  a  lover,  is  all 
sweetness,  may  as  a  husband  have  very  little  respect  or 
even  toleration  for  his  wife's  religious  opinions. 

The  next  great  danger  arises  from  this,  lest  the 
Catholic  should  die  and  thus  leave  the  children  exposed 
to  the  almost  moral  certainty  of  being  brought  up  in 
another  faith,  or  worse  still,  without  any  belief  what- 
ever. Catholics  who  incur  this  risk,  run  counter  to  the 
teachings  of  St.  Paul  in  the  words  :  "  If  any  have  not 
care  of  his  own,  and  especially  of  those  of  his  house, 


140  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

he  hath  denied  the  Faith  and  is  worse  than  an  infidel " 
(I.  Tim.  v.  8).  Non-Catholics  who  believe  they  can  be 
saved  as  easily  in  one  church  as  in  another,  may  not 
see  the  point  of  this.  But  Catholics  who  believe  in  the 
one  true  Church,  who  have  no  reason  and  no  room 
for  doubt,  who  know  the  truth  and  can  give  a  reason 
for  their  faith,  are  the  ones  who  are  reprehensible  if 
they  willingly  expose  themselves  to  these  dangers. 

There  is  yet  another  danger.  It  is  that  of  divorce. 
We  believe  that  the  marriage  tie  cannot  be  broken  ;  we 
hold  that  no  court  of  justice  can  separate  those  whom 
God  has  joined/  Not  so,  however,  with  our  separated 
brethren.  In  not  a  few  of  our  States  and  Territories 
divorce  is  granted  for  many  and  trivial  causes,  causes  so 
trifling  as  to  promote  merriment  if  the  subject  were  not 
so  serious.  With  divorce  comes  blighted  hopes,  with- 
ered prospects,  disappointed  affections,  and  all  the  ills 
that  follow  in  the  train  of  a  ruined  home. 

And  even  though  all  these  dangers  be  absent,  yet  a 
dispensation  from  the  law  of  the  Church  is  necessary — 
&  dispensation  never  given  without  a  grave  cause,  and 
generally  in  order  to  prevent  greater  evils.  Whatever 
reasons  may  have  existed  in  the  past,  it  is  seldom,  in  the 
present  circumstances  of  this  country,  and  with  the 
necessary  number  of  Catholics,  that  we  find  solid  rea- 
sons to  justify  such  marriages.  Before  a  dispensation 
from  the  prohibitory  law  can  be  obtained,  the  non- 
Catholic  party  must  make  certain  promises  in  writing 
and  in  presence  of  witnesses.  The  non-Catholic  must 
promise  : 

First,  to  allow  the  Catholic  full  liberty  of  conscience 
in  the  exercise  of  Catholicity. 

Second^that  all  the  children  shall  be  baptized,  and 


MIXED    MARRIAGES.  141 

brought  up  in  the  Catholic  Church.  Even  though  all 
this  were  done,  though  a  sufficient  cause  existed  for  a 
dispensation,  though  the  required  promises  were  made, 
though  the  parties  were  married  before  the  priest,  how 
many  are  there  who  keep  their  word  thus  solemnly 
pledged  ?  Those  who  are  in  a  position  to  know,  those 
whose  daily  life  brings  them  in  contact  with  mixed 
marriages  and  their  results,  tell  us  that  the  number 
who  break  their  promises  in  this  matter  is  simply 
astonishing.  Nor  can  they  be  compelled  by  law  to 
keep  them,  for  it  would  appear  that  ante-nuptial 
promises  are,  in  point  of  law,  entirely  void.  Bishop 
Ullathorne  presents  this  aspect  of  the  question  with 
great  clearness  and  force.  "It  would  be  unjust,"  he 
writes,  "  as  well  as  ungenerous,  not  to  admit  that  there 
are  Protestants  who  loyally  keep  the  promises  they 
have  made  in  marriage  with  Catholics,  and  who  truly 
respect  the  faith  and  religious  exercises  of  their  Catholic 
spouse,  and  fulfill  their  pledges  respecting  the  educa- 
tion of  the  children.  But  prudence  looks  to  what  gen- 
erally happens,  and  not  to  the  exceptional  cases,  and 
wisdom  never  runs  any  serious  risks  in  matters  "of 
the  soul.  The  individuals,  and  even  the  families,  that 
have  fallen  from  the  Church  through  mixed  marriages, 
amount  to  numbers  incredible  to  those  who  have  not 
examined  the  question  thoroughly  ;  and  the  number  of 
Catholics  bound  at  this  moment  in  mixed  marriages, 
who  live  in  a  hard  and  bitter  conflict  for  the  exercise  of 
their  religion,  for  that  of  their  children,  and,  in  certain 
cases,  for  the  soundness  of  their  moral  life,  could  they, 
with  all  the  facts,  be  known,  would  deter  any  thoughtful 
Catholic  from  contracting  a  mixed  marriage." 

These  are  the  chief  reasons  why  the    Church   is 


142  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

opposed  to  mixed  marriages.  Her  very  ceremonial  and 
ritual  for  mixed  marriages  bring  out  this  opposition  in 
stronger  relief.  A  mixed  marriage  can  not  take  place 
in  the  Church.  There  can  be  no  nuptial  Mass  and  no 
marriage  blessing.  The  priest  is  present,  but  only  as  an 
official  witness.  He  is  not  there  to  impart  a  blessing, 
and  he  does  not  pray  for  them  in  the  name  of  God's 
Church.  The  ceremonial  is  deprived  of  the  beautiful 
liturgy,  and  everything  about  it  is  more  suggestive  of  a 
funeral  than  a  marriage. 

But  in  order  to  prevent  the  effects  we  must  remove 
the  causes.  Foremost  amongst  the  causes  of  mixed  mar- 
riages is  a  lack  of  serious  reflection.  People  entail  upon 
themselves  and  upon  others  untold  misery  because  they 
will  not  think.  Their  thoughtlessness  reminds  us  of 
the  words  of  Jeremiah  :  "  With  desolation  is  the  land 
made  desolate,  because  there  is  no  one  that  considereth 
in  his  heart."  If  a  man  build  a  house  or  buy  a  horse, 
he  will  consult  with  those  who  are  better  informed  than 
himself ;  but  if  he  be  about  to  contract  a  mixed  mar- 
riage he  will  not  stop  to  consider  its  consequences,  nor 
pause  to  find  out  its  dangers  from  those  whose  duty  it 
is  to  know.  A  second  cause  of  mixed  marriage  is  lack 
of  strong  faith.  The  Church  is  the  exponent  of  revealed 
truth,  and  the  director  of  our  actions.  Now,  if  people 
had  a  lively  faith  in  the  Church  of  God,  and  would 
only  realize  the  antagonism  of  the  Church  to  such  mar- 
riages, they  would  never  think  of  contracting  them. 

Other  causes  of  mixed  marriages  are  the  absence  of 
religious  education ;  the  neglect  of  the  Sacraments  in 
early  manhood  and  womanhood ;  the  bad  example  of 
others  ;  the  absurd  idea  that  Catholics,  because  of  their 
religious  principles,  are  socially  inferior  to  non-Catholics; 


MIXED  MARRIAGES.  143 

and  the  silly  literature  of  the  time.  We  refer  in  par- 
ticular to  the  modern  novel,  for  whilst  novel-writing  has 
very  much  degenerated  of  late,  there  are  other  depart- 
ments of  literature  in  which  there  are  writers  equal  to 
those  of  any  period,  and  more  numerous  than  they 
have  ever  been  since  the  dawn  of  English  literature. 
There  is  yet  another  cause,  and  it  is  this  :  Young  peo- 
ple sometimes  put  themselves  in  such  social  intercourse 
that  passionate  fancy  and  youthful  thoughtlessness  are 
likely  to  bring  about  these  mischievous  unions.  There 
is  no  effect  without  a  cause.  Take  away  the  causes 
and  the  effects  will  stop. 

People  should  take  heed  lest  they  be  led  into  a  laby- 
rinth of  misery  by  mixed  marriages.  There  is  no  need 
to  marry  a  Philistine.  There  is  no  need  of  running 
the  risk  of  being  treated  as  poor  old  Samson,  the  giant, 
was ;  or  as  Socrates,  the  philosopher,  was  ;  or  as  Job,  that 
time-honored  example  of  patience,  was ;  or  as  John 
Ruskin,  the  great  art-critic,  wTas  treated.  If  people 
marry  for  money,  the  partner  is  usually  an  incum- 
brance ;  if  they  marry  for  convenience,  it  usually  turns 
out  to  be  an  inconvenience  ;  if  they  marry  for  position 
they  seldom  attain  it,  for  that  is  acquired  by  merit,  not 
by  matrimony. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

DIVORCE. 

C*OME  social  reformers,  and  some  journalists,  seem  to 
^  think  that  the  question  of  divorce  is  not  of  much 
practical  moment  for  Catholics.  With  this  opinion  we 
beg  respectfully  to  differ.  An  idea  has  its  history,  its 
rise,  growth,  and  development,  as  well  as  an  individual. 
Catholics  are  interested  in  the  social  and  religious  well- 
being  of  their  non-Catholic  brethren.  As  long  as 
Catholics  form  part  of  the  body  politic,  as  long  as  they 
are  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  community,  thus 
long  will  the  subject  of  divorce  have  a  practical  utility 
for  them. 

The  words  of  the  ritual  used  by  the  bride  and  bride- 
groom on  their  wedding  day  point  out  the  nature  of 
the  marriage  tie.  They  make  a  promise  not  restricted 
by  any  definite  period  ;  for  it  is  to  last  till  death.  The 
bridegroom  says:  "  I  take  thee  to  be  my  wedded  wife, 
to  have  and  to  hold  from  this  day  forward,  for  better, 
for  worse,  for  richer,  for  poorer,  in  sickness  and  in 
health,  till  death  do  us  part,  if -holy  Church  will  it 
permit ;  and  thereto  I  plight  thee  my  troth."  The 
bride  uses  a  like  form.  These  words  are  full  of  mean- 
ing. They  take  each  other  for  better,  for  worse.  No 
matter  what  ills  may  come,  the  undertaking  is  irrevo- 
cable.    They   take   each  other  for  richer,  for  poorer. 

144 


DIVORCE.  145 

Even  though  the  winter  of  adversity  should  come  upon 
them,  that  solemn  undertaking  is  still  unbroken.  They 
take  each  other  in  sickness  and  in  health.  Though 
disease  may  leave  its  rough  hand  on  the  once  fair  face 
and  faultless  form,  still  the  words  of  the  wedding  day 
must  be  kept  inviolable.  Death,  and  death  only,  can 
sever  the  tie.  Other  contracts  may  be  broken,  but 
once  a  Christian  marriage  is  completed  it  lasts  till 
death.  Friends  may  tread  different  paths  of  life ; 
brothers  may  leave  the  old  roof-tree  ;  merchants  may 
dissolve  partnership  ;  nations  may  set  aside  treaties  j 
but  once  married,  married  till  death.  Other  contracts 
derive  their  binding  force  from  the  will  of  the  contract- 
ing parties,  or  from  the  human  laws  which  sanction 
them.  The  contracting  parties  may  set  aside  their  own 
conditions  by  mutual  consent,  but  not  so  with  the  mat- 
rimonial contract ;  for  it  is  of  Divine  authorship  and 
God  has  determined  its  conditions. 

The  first  essential  condition  of  the  matrimonial  con- 
tract is  unity.  It  has  been  so  from  the  beginning. 
God  Himself,  by  creating  one  wife  for  Adam,  sanc- 
tioned the  unity  of  marriage  and  condemned  polygamy. 
But  He  did  more.  He  confirmed  His  act  by  His 
words  when  He  said  :  "  Wherefore  a  man  shall  leave 
father  and  mother  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife,  and  they 
shall  be  two  in  one  flesh  "  (Gen.  ii.  24).  He  does  not 
say  they  shall  be  three,  or  four,  or  five,  or  six  in  one,  such 
as  those  at  Salt  Lake  City  attempt.  Mormonism  is  a 
great  blotch  on  the  fair  face  of  this  Republic.  More 
dangerous,  because  more  respectable,  is  the  subject  we 
are  considering — divorce. 

Public  opinion  in  this  country  is  strongly  opposed 
to  Mormonism,  and  yet  with  a  strange  inconsistency, 


146  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

there  is  no  such  Christian  sentiment  against  divorce. 
The  latter  is  just  as  much  at  variance  with  the  proper 
ends  of  marriage  as  the  former.  Divorce  differs  not 
substantially  from  Mormonism.  The  difference  is, 
that  whilst  Mormonism  permits  a  man  to  have  several 
wives  at  once,  divorce  practically  allows  him  to  have 
as  many  as  he  pleases,  but  one  after  another,  and  whilst 
the  previous  wives  still  live.  The  annals  of  the  divorce 
court  are  a  sad  commentary  on  the  morals  of  the  nation. 
Mathew  Arnold,  writing  of  the  English  divorce  court, 
says  it  is  an  institution  which  neither  makes  divorce 
impossible  nor  makes  it  decent ;  which  allows  a  man 
to  get  rid  of  his  wife,  or  a  wife  of  her  husband,  but  first 
makes  them  drag  one  another  through  a  mire  of  un- 
utterable infamy.  "  When,"  he  continues,  *■  one  looks 
on  this  charming  institution,  with  its  crowded  benches, 
its  newspaper  reports,  and  its  money  compensations — 
this  institution  in  which  the  gross  British  Philistine 
has  stamped  an  image  of  himself — one  may  be  per- 
mitted to  find  the  marriage  theory  of  Catholicism 
refreshing  and  invigorating."  If  he  were  to  write  of 
the  American  divorce  court  his  language  would  be 
much  stronger.  To  make  confusion  more  confounded, 
the  laws  of  the  States  differ  enormously  as  to  the  legal 
causes  of  divorce.  Some  one  has  pointed  out  that  a 
man  traveling  from  Maine  to  Louisiana  may  come 
under  the  operations  of  fourteen  different  laws  upon 
the  subject  of  divorce.  In  one  State  he  may  be  free  to 
wed,  in  another  a  married  man,  whilst  in  a  third  he 
may  be  prosecuted  for  bigamy.  The  laws  of  the  United 
States  on  the  subject  of  divorce  are  a  monument  of 
stupidity,  and  yet  there  is  little  or  no  effort  made  by 
any  religious  denomination  to  improve  this  miserable 


DIVORCE.  147 

state  of   affairs,  except   what  is  being   done  by   the 
Catholic  Church. 

Those  who  claim  to  be  Christians,  no  matter  to  what 
religious  denomination  they  belong,  should  follow  the 
law  of  Christ  on  the  subject  of  divorce.     The  three 
Evangelists,  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  a  still  greater 
teacher  than  any  of  these,  Paul  of  the  Gentiles,  tell  us 
of  that  law.     We  shall  first  take  the  account  given  in 
the  nineteenth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew.     For  a  proper 
understanding  of  it,  we  must  remember  the  circum- 
stances that  called  forth  from  Christ  this  defense  of  the 
marriage  tie.     Amongst  the  Jews  there  were  two  great 
parties,  half  political,  half  religious.     One  of  their  sub- 
jects of  controversy  was  the  cause  of  divorce.     Some  of 
the  Pharisees,  or  representatives  of  one  of  the   great 
parties  above  mentioned,  came  to  Jesus  and  asked  Him  : 
"  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  for  any 
cause  whatever?"     Christ  treats  the  question  with  a 
gentle,  wholesome  irony.    "  Have  ye  not  read,"  He 
answers,  "  that  He  who  made  man  from  the  beginning, 
made  them  male  and  female  ?  "    His  words  to  them  are 
a  rebuke,  because  they,  men  versed  in  the  law,  men 
supposed  to  be  conversant  with  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
should  have  known   the  original    idea    of   marriage. 
Christ  continues :   "  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave 
father  and  mother   and  cleave  to  his  wife,  and  they 
shall  be  two  in  one  flesh.    Therefore  now  they  are  not 
two  but  one  flesh.     What  therefore  God  hath  joined 
together  let  no  man  put  asunder  "  (3-5).    The  words  of 
Christ  are  clear.     They  are  a  solemn  prohibition  mak- 
ing the  marriage  of  Christians  indissoluble  after  its 
consummation.    This  is  the  law  laid  down  by  Christ,  not 
in  a  discourse  on  ideals,  but  in  reply  to  a  question  rel- 


148  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

ative  to  divorce.  And  yet  the  acts  of  our  law-makers 
are  such  that  we  can  not  help  recalling  the  words  of 
England's  greatest  poet  : 

"  Man,  proud  man 
Dressed  in  a  little  brief  authority: 
Most  ignorant  of  what  he's  most  assured, 
His  glassy  essence— like  an  angry  ape, 
Plays  such  fantastic  tricks  before  high  heaven 
As  make  the  angels  weep." 

Not  content  with  this  explanation,  His  querists  raise 
an  objection  and  ask  :  "Why  then  did  Moses  command 
to  give  a  bill  of  divorce,  and  to  put  away  ?"  (7).  Moses 
was  a  great  and  God-fearing  man,  a  leader  of  the  chosen 
people,  and  he  would  not  willingly  command  a  wrong. 
Christ's  answer  puts  the  matter  in  the  clearest  light. 
Moses  as  a  law-giver  did  not  introduce  divorce  amongst 
his  people.  He  did  not  order  a  bill  of  divorce.  His 
action  is  somewhat  illustrated  by  the  case  of  a  man  who 
suffers  from  a  perplexed  conscience.  The  perplexed 
soul  imagines  a  sin  is  committed,  whether  an  action  is 
performed  or  is  not ;  that  there  is  no  way  of  avoiding 
sin  in  a  particular  case.  If  the  perplexity  can  not 
be  removed  by  prayer,  by  consultation,  or  such 
like  means,  there  is  no  sin  committed  in  selecting 
that  which  seems  to  be  the  less  of  two  evils.  Christ 
denies  that  Moses  ordered  a  divorce.  He  permitted 
or  tolerated  it  because  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts  ; 
he  permitted  it  because  otherwise  that  stiff-necked 
people  would  have  fallen  into  greater  crimes ;  he 
permitted  it  because  there  was  great  danger  that,  had 
he  not  done  so,  these  men  would  rid  themselves  by 
murder  of  their  hated  wives.  Christ  takes  this  oppor- 
tunity of  reminding  them  that  it  was  not  always  so ; 


DIVORCE.  149 

that  under  the  gospel  of  peace  and  love  which  He  came 
to  preach,  the  original  state  of  matrimony  should  be 
restored.  "  He  saith  to  them  :  Because  Moses  by 
reason  of  the  hardness  of  your  hearts  permitted  you  to 
put  away  your  wives,  but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not 
so.  And  I  say  to  you,  that  whosoever  shall  put  away 
his  wife,  except  it  be  for  fornication,  committeth  adul- 
tery, and  he  that  shall  marry  her  that  is  put  away, 
committeth  adultery"  (8,  9).  By  reason  of  the  exception 
mentioned  in  the  foregoing  text,  some  Protestants  con- 
tend that  it  is  lawful  for  a  man  to  obtain  a  divorce 
with  permission  to  re-marry.  But  it  is  an  acknowledged 
canon  of  biblical  and  indeed  historical  criticism,  that  a 
text  must  be  read  in  the  light  thrown  upon  it  by  other 
texts.  We  turn  to  the  pages  of  Marls,  Luke,  and  Paul 
for  this  light.  In  the  tenth  chapter  of  St.  Mark  we- 
read  :  "  Whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife  and  marry 
another,  committeth  adultery  upon  her.  And  if  the 
wife  shall  put  away  her  husband  and  be  married  to 
another,  she  committeth  adultery  "  (11, 12).  The  words 
of  St.  Luke  are  equally  clear.  "  Every  one  who  putteth 
away  his  wife  and  marrieth  another,  committeth  adul- 
tery ;  and  he  that  marrieth  her  that  is  put  away  from 
her  husband,  committeth  adultry "  (xvi.  18).  The 
evidence  of  St.  Paul  is  :  "  But  to  them  that  are  married, 
not  I  but  the  Lord  commandeth,  that  the  wife  depart 
not  from  her  husband.  And  if  she  depart,  that  she  re- 
main unmarried,  or  be  reconciled  to  her  husband.  And 
let  not  the  husband  put  away  his  wife  "  (I.  Cor.  vii.  10, 
1 1).  St.  Jerome  is  one  of  the  greatest  Scriptural  scholars 
of  the  Christian  Church.  Therefore  we  must  not  over- 
look his  explanation.  He  writes  :  '*  Because  it  might 
happen   that  a   woman   be  accused   wrongfully,  and 


150  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

that  a  man  would  make  the  charge  iii  order  to  pass 
to  a  second  marriage,  he  is  allowed  to  dismiss  his  wife 
on  condition  that  he  shall  have  no  other  in  her  life- 
time." 

The  Catholic  Church,  relying  on  the  words  of  sacred 
Scripture  and  of  the  Fathers,  will  give  a  divorce  from 
bed  and  board  when  there  is  *a  just  cause,  but  will  not 
and  can  not  give  permission  to  either  party  to  marry 
another.  This  is  also  a  partial  answer  to  those  who  say 
that  the  teaching  of  our  Church  exacts  too  much  from 
poor,  suffering  humanity.  What  if  there  be  some  cases 
of  individual  suffering?  The  answer  is  complete  if  we 
recall  the  principle,  that  because  a  law  is  inconvenient 
in  some  of  its  special  applications  it  must  not  therefore 
be  suppressed.  The  general  happiness  of  the  married 
life  i3  secured  by  its  indissolubility,  and  when  people 
know  they  must  live  together  this  very  necessity  makes 
them  try  to  lighten  the  burdens  of  married  state. 

The  union  of  husband  and  wife  is  compared  to  that 
of  Christ  and  His  Church.     Christ  must  always  remain 
with  the  Church ;  marriage  is  a  type  of  never-ending 
union.     In  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  St.  Paul  says  : 
u  Husbands,  love    your  wives,  as  Christ  also   loved 
the  Church,  and  delivered  Himself  up  for  it,  that  He 
might  sanctify  it,  cleansing  it  by  the  laver  of  water 
in  the  word  of  life,  that  He  might  present  it  to  Himself 
a  glorious  Church,  not  having  spot  nor  wrinkle,  or  any 
such  thing,  but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without 
blemish.     So  also  ought  men  to  love  their  wives  as 
their  own  bodies.     .     .     .     .     .     For  this  cause  shall 

a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to 
his  wife,  and  they  shall  be  two  in  one  flesh  "  (v.  25-31). 

Divorce  is  a  fruitful  source  of  endles3  crimes.     The 


DIVORCE.  151 

principle  of  divorce  is  a  principle  of  decadence.  Its 
sanction  prompts  men  and  women  to  commit  crime  ; 
its  presence  produces  an  inferior  and  degraded  woman- 
hood ;  it  hinders  the  education  of  children ;  it  sets 
families  at  variance  ;  it  scoffs  at  all  that  is  purest  and 
truest  in  humanity  ;  and  the  lesson  of  history  is  that 
wide-spread  divorce  is  invariably  connected  with 
national  decay.  Every  man  in  the  land,  for  the  sake 
of  his  family,  for  the  sake  of  his  common  humanity, 
for  the  sake  of  his  country  and  of  his  God,  should  set 
his  face  against  this  social  cancer.  Every  woman  also, 
should  do  her  share  to  stamp  out  the  evil.  Divorce 
affects  woman  more  injuriously  than  man.  As  long  as 
the  vigor  of  youth  and  the  glow  of  beauty  are  hers,  she 
may  be  safe  ;  but  when  they  have  disappeared,  when 
the  tempter  is  nigh,  when  a  man  knows  he  can  get  a 
divorce,  then  is  the  danger  that  she  will  be  dethroned 
from  her  place  as  queen  of  the  household  where  the  law 
of  Christianity  has  placed  her. 

In  the  days  of  Paganism  the  wife  was  either  the  toy 
or  the  slave  of  her  husband.  One  day  she  was  favored, 
the  next  she  was  turned  adrift  like  a  hireling.  Matters 
came  to  such  a  pass  in  Pagan  Rome  that  women  counted 
their  years  by  the  number  of  their  husbands ;  family 
life  was  practically  at  an  end  ;  propagation  of  the  race 
was  stopped  among  the  old  Roman  families  ;  and,  lest 
the  race  should  come  to  an  end,  the  State  found  it 
necessary  to  offer  premiums  for  the  birth  of  children. 
But  Christianity  reestablished  the  family,  enforced  the 
indissoluble  union  of  the  marriage  bond,  and  put  the 
wife  in  the  place  of  honor  in  the  household.  It  made 
her  be  respected  in  her  old  age  as  well  as  in  youth  ;  in 
faded  loveliness  as  in  all  the  wild  freshness  of  morn. 


152  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

No  one  can  deny  that  at  the  door  of  Protestantism 
is  to  be  laid  the  modern  evils  of  divorce.  Mr.  T.  D. 
Woolsey,  himself  a  Protestant,  in  his  book  on  "  Divorce 
and  Divorce  Legislation,"  says  :  "  The  leaders  in  the 
changes  of  matrimonial  law  were  the  Protestant  re- 
formers themselves,  and  that  almost  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  movement The  reformers, 

when  they  discarded  the  sacramental  view  of  marriage 
and  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  had  to  make  a  new 
doctrine  of  marriage  and  divorce."  Luther  and  Me- 
lancthon  allowed  Philip  of  Hesse  to  have  two  wives  at 
the  same  time.  Cranmer,  the  first  primate  of  the 
Protestant  Church  in  England,  grafted  Henry  the 
Eighth  a  divorce  from  his  lawful  wife,  the  pious  Cath- 
erine of  Arragon.  If  the  Catholic  Church  had  acted 
similarly,  what  would  have  become  of  the  condensed 
civilization  of  all  the  ages  to  which  we  are  the  rightful 
heirs  ?  We  should  have  sunk  to  the  level  of  some  of  the. 
barbarous  nations  of  Asia,  and  the  Mongolian  of  to-day 
might  be  held  up  to  us  as  a  model  of  culture.  To  her 
honor  be  it  said,  her  Pontiffs  have  always  done  battle 
for  civilization  and  society.  Pope  Nicholas  the  First 
espoused  the  cause  of  the  queen  against  her  husband, 
King  Lothaire  of  Lorraine.  His  successor,  Adrian  II., 
defended  her  just  cause  with  equal  vigor.  Urban  II. 
excommunicated  Philip  of  France  for  having  put  away 
his  wife  and  living  with  the  wife  of  the  Count  of 
Anjou.  Innocent  III.  compelled  Philip  Augustus  to 
take  back  his  wife.  Gregory  the  Seventh  defied  the 
anger  of  Henry  the  Fourth  of  Germany  in  defense  of  a 
wronged  and  banished  wife.  Clement  the  Seventh  re- 
fused to  abandon  the  cause  of  Catherine  of  Arragon 
against  her  husband,  Henry  the  Eighth,  even  though 


DIVORCE.  153 

by  his  action  he  lost  all  England  to  the  Church.  The 
causes,  ethical,  social,  and  legal,  of  divorce  are  many  ; 
the  remedy  is  to  be  found  in  impressing  upon  society 
the  sacramental  idea  of  matrimony,  the  teaching  of  the 
Catholic  Church. 

Divorce  from  bed  and  board  is  somewhat  of  a 
remedy  for  those  who  find,  alas  !  too  late,  that  they  can 
not  live  together.  The  Catholic  Church  allows  this 
when  there  is  a  justifying  cause.  The  final  and  de- 
cretive remedy  must  come  from  that  Church  which 
holds  the  clear  and  literal  meaning  of  the  words  : 
"What  therefore  God  hath  joined  together  let  no  man 
put  asunder  "  (Mark  x.  9). 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

IS  THERE  A  LIFE  BEYOND  THE  GRATE  ? 

^rpHE  soul  is  the  principle  of  life."  So  said  Aristotle, 
-A-  and  after  him  St.  Thomas,  who  purified,  chris- 
tianized, and  divested  of  its  oriental  coloring,  the  phi- 
losophy of  the  former.  A  stone,  for  example,  has  no 
life ;  it  is  not  capable  of  motion  from  within.  It  has 
existence,  and  this  we  have  in  common  with  it.  But 
we  have  more  than  mere  existence,  and  in  order  to 
understand  how  much  more,  we  must  distinguish 
between  the  vegetative  soul,  the  sensitive  or  perceptive, 
and  the  rational  soul.  A  plant  is  capable  of  absorption 
and  has  a  vegetable  life  or  soul ;  a  brute  has  this  also, 
ibut  has  in  addition  a  sensitive  or  perceptive  soul.  The 
soul  of  man  embraces  all,  for  it  is  vegetative,  sensitive, 
and  rational.  The  vital  principle  of  plants  and  animals 
is  dependent  on  matter;  not  so  with  the  soul.  Its 
spirituality  distinguishes  it  from  things  below  us,  its 
union  with  the  body  marks  it  off  from  pure  spirits,  the 
angels  or  things  above  us,  for  they  are  bodyless.  Man 
thinks,  and  wills,  and  reasons.  Every  one  knows  that 
he  can  think,  will,  reason,  reflect,  etc.  These  are  acts 
of  the  soul,  for  the  body  can  not  perform  them.  They 
point  to  a  spiritual  principle  within  us,  because  matter 
is  incapable  of  such  acts.  Spiritual  things  have  their 
phenomena  as  well  as  physical  things.     Thought,  wish, 

154 


IS   THERE   A   LIFE   BEYOND   THE   GRAVE  ?  155 

action,  and  such  like,  are  the  phenomena  of  the  soul ; 
they  point  to  the  substance  from  which  they  come, 
such  as  inertness,  extension,  quantity,  lead  us  to  the 
things  which  support  them.  We  must  not,  therefore, 
be  surprised  to  read  in  Genesis  :  "  God  having  made 
man  of  the  slime  of  the  earth,  breathed  on  his  face  the 
breath  of  life  and  man  became  a  living  soul"  (ii.  7). 
Our  position  thus  far  then  is  this  :  The  soul  exists.  It 
has  an  existence  apart  from  matter,  and  an  action  in 
which  the  body  takes  no  part. 

The  following  words  of  Professor  Tyndall  are  the 
expression  of  a  certain  school  of  thought :  "  Whither 
go  we  ?  The  question  dies  without  an  answer,  without 
even  an  echo,  upon  the  infinite  shores  of  the  unkown. 
*  *  *  *  Having  exhausted  physics  and  reached  its 
very  rim,  the  real  mystery  still  looms  up  beyond  us. 
We  have,  in  fact,  made  no  step  toward  its  solution. 
And  thus  it  will  ever  loom,  even  beyond  the  bourne  of 
knowledge,  compelling  the  philosophies  of  successive 
ages  to  confess  that 

'  We  are  such  stuff 

As  dreams  are  made  of,  and  our  little  life 
Is  rounded  with  a  sleep.' " 

Physics  can  not  answer  the  question,  for  the  reason 
that  it  is  outside  its  pale.  (  Philosophy  gives  a  reason- 
able answer,  Christianity  puts  it  beyond  all  doubt.  The 
advanced  materialist  says,  everything  which  exists  is 
matter ;  the  more  moderate  materialist  admits  the 
existence  of  an  uncreated  spirit,  but  created  spirits  are 
to  him  creatures  of  the  imagination.  He  heeds  not  the 
workings  nor  the  warnings  of  the  spirit  within  him. 
The  medical  materialist  tells  us  of  the  number  of 
bodies  he  has  examined  and  dissected,  and  that  in  all 


156  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

his  examinations  and  dissections  he  could  not  perceive 
a  soul.  Can  you  see  the  magnetism  in  the  needle,  or 
the  undischarged  electricity  in  the  cloud  ?  No  ;  but  you 
can  see  these  phenomena  such  as  you  can  see  the  phe- 
nomena of  soul,  and  we  are  as  justified  in  reasoning 
up  to  the  existence  of  the  one  as  to  that  of  the  other. 
The  materialist  does  not  find  the  soul  because  he  starts 
out  with  the  conclusion  that  it  does  not  exist,  and  his 
method  of  investigation  does  not  lead  to  it.  Whilst  he 
follows  this  system  of  search,  it  is  as  easy  and  as  likely 
for  the  grave-digger  to  reach  the  stars  as  for  the  mate- 
rialist to  find  the  soul. 

The  nature  of  the  human  soul  opens  up  to  the  mind 
a  sphere  full  of  unseen  beauty  and  loveliness.  The 
soul  is  a  spiritual  substance,  and  in  this  we  discern  one 
likeness  between  it  and  the  Creator.  It  can  form  a 
judgment  and  can  compare  ideas;  such  would  be  impos- 
sible if  the  soul  were  not  spiritual.  Mere  matter  is 
incapable  of  comparing  ideas  and  therefore  of  forming 
a  judgment.  The  soul  is  capable  of  abstract  ideas.  It 
can  form  its  own  thoughts  and  make  them  the  subject 
of  other  thoughts.  Those  statements  need  no  proof,  for 
any  one  with  the  use  of  reason  may  test  them.  The 
attributes  of  the  will  point  unmistakably  to  the  spirit- 
uality of  the  soul. 

The  soul  is  free ;  experience  teaches  its  freedom. 
There  is  no  insuperable  necessity  to  do  something  or  to 
avoid  something.  We  can  avoid  evil ;  we  may  do  good. 
The  will  is  somewhat  shackled  by  reason  of  man's  fall, 
but  it  is  free  and  responsible  nevertheless.  The  ideas 
of  justice  and  injustice,  of  virtue  and  vice,  establish  the 
liberty  of  the  soul.  All  distinguish  between  natural 
defects  and  vice ;  between  acts  done  without  delibera- 


IS   THERE    A    LIFE   BEYOND   THE   GRAVE?  157 

tion  and  those  that  are  premeditated.  The  distinction 
would  be  meaningless  if  the  soul  were  not  free.  With- 
out liberty  there  is  no  merit. 

The  unanimous  consent  of  all  peoples  tells  us  of  the 
freedom  of  the  soul.  Such  a  consent,  provided  it  has 
the  requisite  conditions,  is  a  sure  motive  of  judging. 
That  there  exists  this  unanimity  of  consent  is  clear  from 
the  laws,  precepts,  councils,  exhortations,  praise,  blame, 
reward,  punishment,  which  obtain  among  all  nations. 
These  would  be  absurd  if  man  were  not  a  free  agent. 
The  unanimity  of  consent  regarding  the  freedom  of  the 
soul  is  of  the  greatest  importance,  and  is  opposed  to  the 
evil  inclinations  of  man.  If  the  soul  were  not  free 
God's  commandments  were  ridiculous.  The  soul  then 
exists,  is  the  principle  by  which  we  live,  and  know,  and 
resolve  ;  is  the  seat  of  the  acts  of  sensation,  of  mind,  of 
will,  and  of  memory ;  can  not  be  coerced,  possesses 
freedom,  and  is  a  spiritual  substance. 

We  claim  for  it  another  likeness  to  its  Creator,  and  it 
is  this  which  gives  us  the  life  beyond  the  grave,  immor- 
tality. God  says  we  are  created  to  His  own  image.  He 
is  a  pure  spirit.  Our  souls  are  like  unto  Him,  spiritual 
beings  that  can  never  die.  The  soul  has  no  parts.  It 
can  not  be  disjointed  or  disunited,  as,  for  example,  a 
building  can.  That  it  has  no  parts  or  atoms  of  any 
kind  we  know  from  many  sources,  for  example,  from  its 
power  of  forming  judgment ;  and  that  which  has  no 
parts  can  not  be  destroyed.  Being  spiritual,  it  is  incor- 
ruptible and  no  created  force  can  destroy  it.  In  its 
action  it  is  independent  of  matter ;  in  its  being  it  is 
equally  independent.  It  is  therefore  of  its  own  nature 
incorruptible.  The  body  is  constantly  changing ;  the 
soul,  never.     Old  men  remember  what  they  learned  in 


158  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

childhood  and  the  friendships  of  youth  are  seldom  for- 
gotten.    It  is  as  easy  to  corrode  electricity  as  to  corrupt 
the  soul  in  the  sense  in  which  we  write.    Neither  from 
its  own  nature  nor  from  any  created  power,  then,  can 
destruction  come.     It  is  needless  to  discuss  whether  God 
can  destroy  it  or  not ;  for  we  know  that  He  will  not. 
He  tells  us  again  and  again  that  it  will  live  forever. 
Jesus  Christ  says  :  "And  there  the  wicked  shall  go  into 
everlasting  punishment,  but  the  just  into  life  everlast- 
ing "  (Matt.  xxv.  46).    Goodness  is  not  always  rewarded 
in  this  life  ;  nor  is  wickedness  always  punished.    The 
noblest  deeds  of  man,  patriotism  and  martyrdom,  might 
pass  away  unrewarded  if  there  were  not  a  life  beyond 
the  grave.    God  would  not  be  what  He  is  if  there  were 
not  another  life  for  man.    The  idea  we  have  of  His 
justice,  assuring  us  that  He  invariably  rewards*good  and 
punishes  evil,  implies  another  life,  because  good  and 
evil,  virtue  and  vice,  are  not  always  rewarded    and 
punished,  respectively,  in  this  life.     As  the  soul  is  of 
its  own  nature  indestructible,  as  it  can  not  be  destroyed 
by  any  created  power,  and  as  God  will  not  destroy  it 
even  if  He  could,  the  conclusion  is  that  there  is  a  life 
eternal  beyond  the  tomb. 

Let  us  suppose  for  a  moment  that  the  soul  is  not 
immortal  and  see  what  absurdities  follow.  Man, 
who  is  looked  upon  as  lord  of  creation,  becomes  the 
veriest  puppet  and  plaything  of  nature.  His  innate 
yearning  is  never  satisfied.  Other  creatures,  sup- 
posed to  have  been  created  for  man's  benefit,  have 
their  natural  tendencies  realized  in  this  world  ;  man's 
aspirations  are  stunted  and  his  very  constitution  con- 
tains an  essential  flaw  if  there  be  not  another  life. 
Such    teaching    can    not    stand    the    test,    and    man 


IS   THERE   A   LIFE   BEYOND   THE   GRAVE?  159 

can  not  be  put  in  a  position  lower  than  the  brute. 
Nature  can  not  be  false  to  itself.  The  impossibility  of 
persuading  oneself  that  he  will  never  again  see  his 
departed  friends  argues  a  life  beyond  the  grave.  "All 
the  subtleties  of  metaphysics,"  writes  Rousseau,  "  will 
not  make  me  doubt  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  I 
feel  it,  I  wish  it,  I  hope  for  it,  I  will  defend  it  with  my 
latest  breath." 

The  history  of  the  human  family  shows  that  belief 
in  the  immortality  of  the  soul  has  always  obtained 
among  the  human  race.     This  belief  was  frequently 
disfigured  and  distorted,  yet  even  in  its  most  hideous 
form  it  was    capable  of  being  recognized.     Modern 
research  has  thrown  some  light  on  this  ancient  belief. 
The  graves  of  Chaldea  contain  provisions,  lamps,  etc., 
which  the  deceased  are  supposed  to  use.     That  old 
Egyptian  work,  "  The  Book  of  the  Dead,"  from  which 
the  departed  are  expected  to  recite  in  order  to  get  a 
favorable  judgment,  points  to  a  belief  in  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul  among  that  ancient  people.    The 
Hebrew  race  steadfastly,  and  from  the  first,  adhered 
to  this  teaching.    Let  us  look  at  the  Old  Testament 
from  a  mere  historical  standpoint,  and  we  find  that 
they  held   it  not  as  a  matter  of  dispute,  but  as  a 
firm  belief.     The  belief  which  runs  through  all  these 
old  books  may  be  expressed  in  the  following  words : 
"  It  is  a  holy  and  a  wholesome  thought  to  pray  for  the 
dead  that  they  may  be  released  from  their  sins  "  (II. 
Machabees  xii.  46).    All  the  old  philosophers,  such  as 
Plato  and  Socrates,  Cicero  and  Seneca,  Plutarch  and 
Aristotle,  proclaimed  their  belief  in  another  life.    Stu- 
dents of  Homer  and  of  Virgil  know  how  they  expressed 
the  belief  of  their  time  by  consigning  the  good  after 


160  RATIONAL    RELIGION. 

death  to  the  Elysian  Fields  and  the  wicked  to  Hades 
or  Tartarus.  The  universal  belief  of  the  ancient  nations 
is  an  acknowledged  fact  of  history.  All  modern  peo- 
ples, civilized  or  savage,  hold  it.  Even  in  the  dark 
continent  the  Hottentot  asks  that  his  bow  and  arrows 
be  buried  with  him,  so  that  he  may  wage  war  upon  his 
enemies  in  the  next  life  ;  and  our  own  Indians  have  a 
firm  hope  of  a  happy  hunting-ground  beyond  the  grave. 
Belief  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul  is  now,  as  it  has 
ever  been,  practically  the  unanimous  faith  of  the 
human  race.  The  voice  of  the  whole  human  family  is 
the  voice  of  God.  It  is  a  doctrine  which  is  in  con- 
formity with  man's  nature,  appeals  to  his  reason,  cheats 
not  the  mind,  and  must  be  true. 

There  exists  in  every  man  a  desire,  innate  and  insep- 
arable, of  perfect  felicity.  It  is  imprinted  on  his  very 
nature,  stamped  indelibly  on  the  fleshy  tablets  of  his 
heart.  It  is  this  desire  that  moves  man  to  action,  and 
by  it  society  is  preserved.  Coming,  as  it  does,  from  the 
great  and  All- wise  Creator  of  the  universe,  it  can  not 
have  been  given  to  us  unto  mockery  and  disgrace.  But 
it  would  be  so  given  if  it  were  never  satisfied,  and  there- 
fore a  time  must  come  when  this  innate  and  unquench- 
able desire  will  be  satisfied  to  its  fullest  extent.  It  can 
not  be  during  this  life,  because  for  perfect  happiness 
you  require  the  absence  of  every  evil,  the  possession  of 
every  good,  and  the  certainty  of  never  falling  from  that 
state,  conditions  which  it  is  obvious  are  unattainable 
during  man's  life  on  earth.  Some  seek  their  happiness 
one  way,  some  another.  The  gilded  youth  seeks  it  in 
scenes  of  mirth  and  sprightliness  ;  the  miser  seeks  it  in 
pressing  his  money  bags  close  to  his  heart,  in  never 
loosening  his  purse-strings  for  any  cause,  however  so 


IS   THERE   A    LIFE   BEYOND   THE   GRAVE?  161 

good;  the  epicure  seeks  it  in  gratifying  his  appetite; 
the  ambitious  in  trying  to  raise  himself  to  honor,  or  for- 
tune, or  power  ;  the  philosopher  in  solitude  and  books  ; 
but  no  one  finds  it.  "  I  have  seen  and  contemplated," 
writes  Cardinal  Gibbons,  "  two  of  the  greatest  rulers  on 
the  face  of  the  earth, —  the  civil  ruler  of  sixty -five  mill- 
ions, and  the  spiritual  ruler  of  two  hundred  and  fifty 
millions  of  people.  I  have  conversed  with  the  President 
and  the  Pope  in  their  private  apartments,  and  I  am 
convinced  that  their  exalted  position,  far  from  satisfy- 
ing the  aspirations  of  their  souls,  did  but  fill  them  with 
a  profound  sense  of  their  grave  responsibility." 

All  have  to  agree  with  Solomon, u  Vanity  of  vanities." 
All  are  compelled  to  ask  with  the  distinguished  author 
of  Vanity  Fair  :  "  Which  of  us  in  this  life  has  all 
that  he  desires,  and  having  it,  is  happy?"  All  have 
to  accept  the  conclusion  of  one  of  the  most  fasci- 
nating philosophers  of  modern  times,  "  that  life  for  its 
own  sake  and  without  reference  to  a  future  state,  is  not 
worth  the  living."  Hence  we  say  this  desire  of  perfect 
felicity,  since  it  has  been  implanted  in  our  very  nature 
by  the  hand  of  God  himself;  since  it  can  not  have  been 
given  to  us  unto  mockery  and  disgrace,  and  since  it 
can  not  be  satisfied  in  this  life,  forces  on  us  the  in- 
evitable conclusion  that  there  must  be  another  life  in 
which  to  satisfy  it.  .  In  other  words,  it  makes  us  believe 
the  immortality  of  the  soul.  This  is  the  explanation 
of  the  "pleasing  hope,"  the  "fond  desire," the  "long- 
ing of  the  immortality."  Hence  we  say,  the  soul 
defies  the  drawn  sword.  Hence  we  say,  also,  the  soul 
will  nourish  in  immortal  youth, 

"  Unhurt  amid  the  war  of  elements, 
The  wreck  of  matter  and  crash  of  worlds." 


162  RATIONAL  RELIGION. 

"The  souls  of  the  just  are  in  the  hand  of  God,  and 
the  torment  of  death  shall  not  touch  them.  In  the 
sight  of  the  unwise  they  seemed  to  die,  and  their 
departure  was  taken  for  misery.  *  *  *  *  But 
they  are  in  peace  and  their  hope  is  full  of  immortality  " 
(Wisdom  iii.  1-4). 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

BEADING. 

^  "HEADING  inaketh  a  full  man,"  wrote  the  philoso- 
■li  pher  Bacon.  On  these  words  we  purpose  to 
preach  a  lay  sermon.  The  body  requires  drink  as  well 
as  meat;  liquids  as  well  as  solids.  The  soul — the  other 
essential  element  of  human  nature — craves  for  a  two- 
fold kind  of  food  ;  both  kinds  spiritual,  one  of  them 
supernatural,  the  other  may  be  either  natural  or  super- 
natural. The  supernatural  food  of  the  soul  is  divine 
grace.  Its  natural  food,  since  it  is  that  invisible  faculty 
which  thinks,  is  thought.  Thought  is  supplied  to  us 
from  many  sources.  We  evolve  it  from  our  own  inner 
consciousness  ;  from  the  world  around  us  ;  from  the 
worlds  above  us  ;  from  God  in  His  creative  act ;  from 
God,  as  seen  in  things  created — trees,  flowers,  fruits, 
the  whole  animal  and  vegetable  worlds — ;  from  God,  as 
seen  in  the  wonderful  order  of  the  universe  ;  from  the 
laws  of  nature,  always  unchanged,  though  occasionally 
superseded  or  suspended,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  Gospel 
miracles ;  from  the  floating  knowledge  acquired  by 
communication  with  our  fellow-man ;  etc.,  etc.  But 
the  great  and  varied  and  unfailing  supply  of  food  for 
thought  comes  from  reading.  Read,  read,  read,  is  the 
advice  of  St.  Augustine  of  Hippo.  The  saint  meant 
not  omnivorous  reading.     He  knew  too  well  the  effects 

163 


164  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

of  vicious  reading,  and  its  appeal  to  the  passions, 
sometimes  through  the  intellect,  more  frequently 
through  the  imagination  ;  he  knew  from  sad  experience 
what  effects  the  reading  of  the  lascivious  plays  of  the 
Roman  poet,  Publius  Terence,  had  produced  in  himself 
before  his  conversion,  to  have  made  his  counsel 
universal. 

Under  the  head  of  reading  we  may  include  news- 
papers, magazines,  periodicals,  and  books  from  the 
slim  Seaside  Library  edition  to  the  ponderous  ten- 
dollar  tome. 

The  power  of  the  press  is  mighty  for  good  or  evil. 
Like  the  tongue,  it  may  work  a  world  of  iniquity  or  a 
world  of  good.  From  it  may  proceed  blessing  or  curs- 
ing. Its  influence  is  recognized  by  all  sorts  and  condi- 
tions of  men.  The  clever  business-man,  be  he  a  banker 
or  a  merchant,  the  shrewd  politician,  be  he  a  Democrat 
or  a  Republican,  knowing  the  power  of  the  newspaper 
and  recognizing  its  influence,  tries  to  be  the  proprietor 
of  one,  or  at  least  to  control  it,  or  to  affect  it  for  the 
advancement  of  his  interest.  The  apostles  of  Infidelity 
and  Agnosticism,  and  the  professors  of  the  religion  of 
humanity,  have  well-regulated  and  extensively  circu- 
lating journals  at  their  disposal.  "  The  children  of 
darkness  are  wiser  in  their  generation  than  the  children 
of  light"  (Luke  xvi.  8). 

The  newspaper,  be  it  a  daily  or  a  weekly,  finds  its 
way  into  many  a  home.  This  is  well,  provided  the 
paper  be  good  in  the  ethical  sense  of  the  word.  But  if 
it  be  not,  how  has  the  parent  discharged  his  duty 
towards  his  family?  How  the  obligation  of  training 
the  young  minds  of  his  family?  How  has  he  governed 
his  household?    Let  him  think  on  the  words  of  St. 


READING.  165 

Paul  to  Timothy  and  then  supply  the  answer  :  "  But 
if  any  man  have  not  care  of  his  own,  and  especially 
those  of  his  own  house,  he  hath  denied  the  faith ;  he  is 
worse  than  an  infidel "  (I.  Tim.  v.  8). 

The  literary  market  is  stocked  with  bad  or  with 
worthless  newspapers.  Take  a  look  at  the  news-agent's 
stand  and  see  how  it  is  weighed  down  with  papers  that 
openly  attack  or  sneer  at  our  religion,  or  what  is  still 
more  repulsive,  patronize  it  in  one  paragraph  in  order 
to  get  in  a  well-directed  thrust  in  the  next.  The 
Catholic  paper  is  placed  in  the  background  as  some- 
thing seldom  asked  for.  Should  the  reader  desire  an 
illustrated  paper,  he  is  supplied  with  one  mainly  made 
up  of  vile  and  stupid  cartoons  of  his  countrymen,  or 
with  one  setting  forth  in  its  prints  deeds  of  midnight 
darkness  :  a  robber  making  his  escape  on  horseback,  a 
female  scalding  her  betrayer  with  boiling  water,  a  crack 
shot  dealing  death  around  in  some  gambling  den,  and 
such  like,  that  catch  hold  of  the  young,  and  fire  their 
imagination. 

And  here  let  us  combat  one  or  two  objections  that 
we  hear  in  connection  with  Catholic  newspapers.  We 
are  told  that  the  paper  is  no  good — not  worth  buying  ; 
that  it  has  too  much  religion  in  it  and  not  enough  poli- 
tics ;  that  it  advocates  the  cause  of  this  or  that  party. 
It  is  not  worth  buying,  repeats  the  fastidious  critic. 
Suppose,  for  a  moment,  our  Catholic  papers  be  not  up 
to  the  standard  of  newspaper  excellence,  the  fault  is  to 
)De  attributed,  in  great  measure,  to  the  apathy  of  the 
Catholics  themselves.  They  do  not  patronize  the  Cath- 
olic press  sufficiently  well ;  they  do  not  put  the  mana- 
gers of  Catholic  papers  in  a  position  to  engage  the  best 
talent  on  our  papers.    If  our  papers  are  not  as  good  as 


166  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

they  might  be,  it  is  not  for  lack  of  talent  among  Catho- 
lic journalists.  Many  of  the  leading  journalists  of  this 
country  are  Catholics  ;  the  leader-writers  on  most  of 
the  London  dailies  are  Catholics  ;  but  they  are  in  the 
hands  of  non-Catholic  employers,  and  Catholic  news- 
papers have  not  been  able  to  hold  out  the  pecuniary 
inducements  to  enlist  this  talent  on  their  side.  We 
should  say,  in  the  words  of  the  late  Archbishop  McHale, 
"  If  you  wish  for  an  honest  press  you  must  give  in  an 
honest  support." 

There  is  too  much  religion  and  not  enough  politics 
and  news  in  the  Catholic  papers,  is  a  common  plaint 
against  them.  Catholic  newspapers  are  not  and  ought 
not  to  be  newsy  in  the  sense  of  chronicling  crimes 
under  sensational  and  fascinating  headings,  for  it  is  not 
the  part  of  such  journals  to  cast  a  halo  of  romance 
around  the  vices  of  the  people,  or  to  screen  with  a 
glamour  of  language  the  faults  and  follies  of  the  multi- 
tude. And  whilst  we  admit  that  a  Catholic  newspaper 
without  politics  is  like  a  man  without  a  back-bone — 
for  politics  are  the  public  morals  of  the  nation — we  do 
not  think  that  they  should  take  the  first  place  in  any 
Catholic  paper.  As  Catholics,  as  believers  in  God,  we 
must  hold  that  everything  else  must  be  made  subserv- 
ient to  religion,  and  we  believe  our  Catholics  are  not  so 
superlatively  instructed  in  their  religion  but  that  they 
might  profitably  give  a  few  minutes  to  the  reading  of 
an  article  on  a  religious  subject.  We  believe  a  column 
or  two  of  a  newspaper  might  well  be  devoted  to  a  short 
sermon.  Then  there  are  the  many  inexhaustible  re- 
ligio-scientific  questions — those  questions  where  science 
and  religion  obviously  walk  hand  in  hand  ;  those  ques- 
tions where  they  are  apparently,  but  only  apparently, 


READING.  167 

made  to  clash,  for  truth  can  not  contradict  truth  ;  the 
various  similar  questions  arising  from  the  innermost 
recesses  of  this  little  planet,  onward  and  upward  to  the 
blue  arches  of  heaven.  Tell  us  not  that  such  subjects 
are  unfit  for  a  newspaper  and  suited  only  for  the  pages 
of  a  heavy  quarterly  or  a  philosophical  monthly. 
Catholics,  as  a  rule,  are  not  so  well  educated  that  they 
can  afford  to  overlook  such  subjects.  Even  those  who 
are  well  informed  in  their  own  profession  or  calling  in 
life,  profit  not  a  little  by  elementary  explanations  of 
dogma,  of  ceremonial,  and  of  questions  on  science  and 
religion. 

Whilst  some  complain  that  our  Catholic  papers 
have  not  enough  politics  in  them,  others  think  it  a 
grievance  that  they  should  discuss  political  questions 
at  all.  Why  Catholic  papers  should  close  their  columns 
to  politics,  it  is  difficult  to  understand.  The  fate  and 
fortunes  of  Catholicity  are  not  bound  to  any  one  party 
or  form  of  government.  A  Catholic,  as  far  as  Catho- 
licity is  concerned,  may  be  a  Democrat  or  a  Republican,  a 
Nationalist  or  a  Royalist.  Whilst  believing  in  St.  Paul's 
teaching,  that  there  is  no  power  except  from  God,  they 
do  not  believe  in  the  divine  right  of  kings.  The  Catho- 
licity of  a  country  should  not  be  so  linked,  with  its 
form  of  government  that  with  the  latter  it  must  stand 
or  fall.  And  in  those  countries  where  the  Church  has 
bound  herself  thus  closely,  she  has  always  been  the  suf- 
ferer. 

Catholics,  as  well  as  other  citizens,  want  to  vote,  and 
in  some  way  are  bound  to  do  so  ;  and  in  order  to  vote 
intelligently,  they  must  needs  have  political  instruction. 
There  is  no  reason  why  they  should  blindly  follow  the 
political  teaching  of  their  favorite  journal ;  but  in  it, 


168  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

and  in  other  papers,  they  will  see  the  questions  at  issue 
discussed,  the  arguments  for  and  against,  and  they  can 
draw  their  own  conclusions.  Readers  of  newspapers 
should  learn  and  practice  a  little  forbearance.  A 
journal  advocates  the  cause  of  this  or  that  man ;  at 
once  the  reader  waxes  indignant,  stops  his  subscription, 
and,  in  his  apparently  virtuous  indignation,  asks  how 
any  Catholic  can  vote  for  or  solicit  votes  for  such  a  man. 
A  man  who  votes  according  to  his  lights,  be  they  ever 
so  dim,  is  fully  justified  in  so  doing.  A  journalist  is 
generally  a  man  of  eduction,  and,  as  a  rule,  has  more 
opportunities  of  being  conversant  with  politics  than  his 
readers. 

We  now  come  to  a  more  pretentious  literature — the 
magazine.  The  newspaper  and  periodical — more  par- 
ticularly the  former — are  fast  pushing  books  out  of  the 
market.  It  is  true  John  Ruskin  reads  not  newspapers, 
but  in  this  he  has  few  disciples.  Every  home  wishing 
to  be  conversant  with  the  leading  questions  of  the  day 
should  have  its  magazine  as  well  as  its  newspaper.  And 
here  again  should  be  exercised  the  same  watchfulness, 
so  that  nothing  defiled  can  enter  the  sacred  precincts  of 
the  family  circle.  Liberty  in  reading  must  not  degen- 
erate into  license.  A  man  having  many  kinds  of  food 
to  select  from,  will  not  choose  that  which  is  poisonous. 
If  the  care  exercised  were  proportionate  to  the  excel- 
lence of  the  thing  cared  for,  surely  we  should  be  more 
cautious  in  providing  food  for  the  mind  than  for  the 
body.  The  print,  paper,  style,  engravings,  may  be 
excellent,  but  we  have  to  look  further.  What  is  the 
subject-matter  ?  How  does  it  treat  religious  questions  ? 
Does  it  talk  mysteriously  about  the  Unknowable  and 
the  religion  of  Humanity,  and  dismiss  flippantly,  if  not 


READING.  1G9 

blasphemously,  the  most  sacred  subjects?  What  is  the 
tone  of  its  historical  and  scientifico-religious  articles? 
These  queries  deserve  consideration.  Select  not  that 
magazine  which,  by  its  engravings,  is  suggestive  of  evil, 
or  by  its  articles  makes  moral  pitfalls,  or  raises  dog- 
matic difficulties  which  your  training  has  not  qualified 
you  to  solve.  Trained  theologians  are  few,  and  none 
but  these  can  safely  answer  the  religious  difficulties 
raised  in  some  latter-day  magazines.  Not  that  these 
difficulties  are  very  difficult,  for  they  are  generally 
rehashes  of  objections,  old  as  the  days  of  the  Gnostics ; 
but  a  man  may  be  well  versed  in  law,  or  medicine,  or 
business,  may  know  his  catechism,  may  have  read  relig- 
ious books  not  a  few,  may  be  a  good  Christian,  and  yet 
be  not  able  to  meet  such  objections.  Keep  to  those 
magazines  that  are  safe  reading.  Think  not  that  a  man 
is  better  informed  than  you  because  he  happens  to 
have  read  a  magazine  article  which  you  may  be  bound 
in  conscience  not  to  read.  We  are  not  advocating  the 
restriction  of  good  reading,  but  simply  the  shutting  out 
of  that  which  is  bad. 

Non-Catholic  magazines  are  gotten  up  regardless  of 
expense.  The  highest  artistic  taste  is  engaged  to  render 
attractive,  scenes  offensive  to  pious  eyes.  The  best 
writers  that  money  can  buy  are  obtained.  The  work- 
manship is  faultless.  There  is,  or  at  least  there  ought  to 
be,  as  much  literary  taste  and  talent  among  the  Catholics 
of  this  country  as  among  any  of  the  sects.  We  believe 
there  is  even  more  artistic  taste  ;  and  it  would  indeed 
be  strange  and  sad  were  it  otherwise,  when  we  consider 
that  our  Church  has  always  been  the  patron  of  art.  Of 
course,  we  extend  the  comparison  to  the  more  wealthy 
only,  and  proportionate  to  the  numbers  of  such  from 


170  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

the  different  denominations.  The  struggle  for  exist- 
ence, and  even  for  a  competency,  is  over  in  many  parts, 
Dame  Fortune  smiles  on  not  a  few,  and  ease  and  incli- 
nation have  given  an  impetus  to  literature  and  art. 
Hence  if  our  magazines  be  not  equal  to  those  of  others, 
it  is  because  we  do  not  extend  that  patronage  which 
would  enable  editors  to  engage  the  best  talent.  For 
this  reason  also,  non-Catholic  magazines  are  enriched 
with  the  fruit  of  Catholic  talent.  At  the  same  time  we 
may  expect  a  quid  pro  quo,  and  not  to  have  to  buy  the 
magazine  from  a  sole  motive  of  duty.  Give  the  Cath- 
olic periodical  a  better  support,  and  it  will  supply 
better  material. 

Although  papers  and  periodicals  encroach  consider- 
ably on  the  domain  of  books,  yet  men  of  higher  educa- 
tion and  of  laudable  ambition,  people  of  delicate  health, 
people  living  in  a  climate  where  out-door  exercise  is 
somewhat  restricted,  people  wishing  to  overcome  ennui, 
people  desirous  of  being  well  informed,  will  read  books. 
Desultory  reading  is  not  at  all  desirable.  Give  your 
reading  a  certain  direction ;  fine  out  what  particular 
subject  you  have  a  taste  for  ;  take  to  it,  and  you  will 
find  pleasure  in  mastering  even  its  details,  and  you  will 
know  something  of  kindred  subjects ;  for  there  is  none 
that  stands  so  severely  alone  as  not  to  run  into  other 
questions.  But  we  are  viewing  reading  from  a  Catholic 
standpoint.  We  are  not  free  to  roam  at  will,  regardless 
of  the  moral  tone  of  the  book.  There  is  hardly  any- 
thing wherein  liberty  degenerates  so  easily  into  license  as 
in  reading.  We  are  apt  to  lose  sight  of  the  ethics  of 
reading,  quieting,  or  smothering,  or  trying  to  resist  the 
remonstrances  of  a  good  conscience  in  the  light  of  so- 
called  intellectual  culture.     Those  books  that  are  dan- 


READING.  171 

gerous  to  faith  or  morals  are  forbidden,  as  well  as  those 
that  are  positively  bad.  Some  books  are  prohibited  by 
the  natural  law,  that  is,  by  an  ordinance  imposed  on  us 
by  Almighty  God  and  made  known  to  us  by  the  light 
of  reason,  telling  us  that  some  things  are  bad  in  them- 
selves and  are  to  be  avoided ;  commanding  other  things 
that  are  good  and  necessary  for  the  probity  of  morals. 
Of  the  vices  opposed  to  fraternal  charity,  scandal  is 
one ;  and  of  all  kinds  of  scandal  there  is  none  to  be 
more  execrated  than  that  begotten  of  impious  and 
obscene  books.  Here  is  what  Father  Gury,  one  of  the 
first  moral  theologians  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
teaches  concerning  bad  books  :  "  This  is  a  diabolical 
invention,  and  of  all,  the  most  efficacious  for  hurling 
whole  troops  of  souls  into  the  pit  of  hell.  It  is  a 
plague,  the  most  dreadful  and  inhuman  of  all,  which 
affects  not  only  one  region  or  age,  but  extends  to  all 
times  and  places,  and  in  all  makes  fearful  havoc.  Who 
can  tell  what  dreadful  evils  to  religion  and  morals  have 
arisen  from  bad  books  as  from  a  poisoned  fountain,  and, 
indeed  will  be  propagated  and  multiplied  till  the  end 
of  the  world."  Obscene  books  are  not  permitted  to  be 
read  by  any  one.  There  is  not  and  there  can  not  be 
any  justification  for  reading  them  ;  nor  is  it  lawful  to 
print,  or  to  propagate,  or  to  sell  such  books.  It  is  sadly 
amusing  to  see  a  group  of  young  men  in  a  railway-car, 
evidently  acquaintances,  perhaps  friends,  reading  books 
so  obscene  that  for  very  shame  one  will  not  allow 
another  to  know  what  he  is  reading. 

Books  opposed  to  faith  are  also  forbidden.  Some 
men,  prudent  and  learned,  may  be  permitted  to  read 
them  for  the  purpose  of  refutation  ;  but  then  the  num- 
ber is  limited,  and  is  generally  confined  to  those  who 


172  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

have  received  a  special  training  in  the  theological 
sciences.  Our  people,  as  a  rule,  are  not  allowed  to  read 
such  books.  A  desire  to  know  the  other  side  is  not  a 
justifying  cause  for  exposing  themselves  to  the  danger 
of  suffering  shipwreck  of  the  faith.  At  the  same  time 
we  must  not  be  understood  as  implying  that  people 
should  not  read  any  book  written  by  a  non-Catholic. 
Perhaps  some  of  the  most  successful  defenses  of  Chris- 
tianity have  been  written  in  these  latter  days  by  non- 
Catholics.  We  do  not  say  the  most  learned  or  the  most 
logical,  but  the  most  successful.  In  this  connection  we 
might  mention,  "Is  Life  Worth  Living?"  by  W.  H. 
Mallock,  a  book  in  which  the  author  shows  that  life  for 
its  own  sake,  and  without  reference  to  a  future  state,  is 
not  worth  living.  "Ben-Hur"  is  another  example, 
good  as  gold,  readable  as  a  romance,  sparkling  with  the 
purest  Christianity. 

Education  among  English-speaking  Catholics  was 
for  a  long  time  proscribed,  and  they  were  insulted 
because  of  the  faults  and  follies  of  their  foes.  They 
were  deprived  of  the  means  of  education,  and  then 
called  ignorant.  One  may  as  justly  call  a  man  a  pauper 
after  having  robbed  him.  Now  that  those  times  have 
passed  away,  and,  in  fact,  never  existed  in  this  country, 
it  is  our  duty,  and  it  ought  to  be  our  pride,  to  be  leaders 
in  intellectual  culture,  as  well  as  in  faith,  morality,  and 
social  reform.  How  are  we  to  know  whether  or  not  a 
book  is  fit  to  be  read?  There  is  little  difficulty  in 
answering  the  question  as  far  as  Catholic  publications 
are  concerned.  Should  it  treat  professedly  of  some 
theological  subject,  it  bears  the  imprimatur  of  the  Ordi- 
nary who  has  examined  the  book,  either  personally  or 
by  deputy.     This  is  a  sufficient  guarantee  of  the  ortho- 


READING.  173 

doxy  of  the  book,  though  not  always  of  its  literary 
excellence.     Young  men  sometimes  desire,  and  very 
laudably,  too,  a  more  elaborate  and  lengthened  explana- 
tion and  proof  of  Catholic  doctrine  than  that  contained* 
in  our  catechisms.    There  are  books  not  a  few,  and 
periodicals  many,  that  contain  such  admirable  expla- 
nations of  questions  and  defenses  of   doctrine,    and 
answers  to  objections,  but  since  they  are  for  the  most 
part  professional,  they  are  known  generally   only  to 
priests.    The  pastor,  then,  or  the  spiritual  director,  is 
the  person  to  be  consulted  on  this  point.     The  main 
difficulty  arises  with  that  class  of  books  known  as 
novels ;  not  those  professedly  immoral,  for  they  carry 
with  them  their  own  condemnation.     Some  few  prudish 
people  speak  as  though  all  novels  were  bad  and  should 
be  ostracized.     It  would  be  a  sad  day  and  lonely  to 
lovers  of   letters  if   "Fabiola,"  "Calista,"  "Loss  and 
Gain,"  the  charming  historical  novels  of  Walter  Scott, 
the  delightful  pen-pictures  of  human  life  by  William 
M.  Thackeray,  and  such  similar  productions,  were  set 
aside  by  this  sweeping  denunciation  of  all  books  de- 
nominated novels.     The  fact  is,  outside  those  books  that 
are  intrinsically  evil,  no  very  general  rule  can  be  given. 
Some  people  may  read  sentimental  books  as  much  un- 
moved as  though  they  were  reading  the  Abbe  Darre's 
treatise    on  "  Trigonometry,"    or    Darwin's    work   on 
"  Worms."   To  others  of  a  different  temperament  and  a 
more  vivid  imagination,  such  books  may  be  positively 
dangerous.   Many  cases  require  individual  decision,  and 
though  universal  or  even  general  rules  can  not  be  laid 
down,  yet  we  can  find  some  convenient  formulas  that 
will  apply  to  a  considerable  number  of  cases.     Charles 
Sante  Foi  advises  people  never  to  read  a  book  descrip- 


174  RATIONAL   RELIGION. 

tive  of  scenes  that  they  would  not  look  at,  or  containing 
words  they  would  not  utter.  People  sometimes  read 
descriptions  of  scenes  and  circumstances  that  they 
would  blush  to  look  at,  and  peruse  without  remorse, 
words  that  they  would  resent  if  orally  addressed  to 
them.  As  it  is  as  sinful  to  tell  a  lie  on  paper  as  by 
mouth,  so  it  is  as  sinful  to  listen  to  double-meaning 
and  wickedly-suggestive  language  through  the  medium 
of  books  as  to  the  spoken  word.  Some  may  think  the 
following  advice  of  Charles  Sante  Foi  quite  too  rigid ; 
however,  it  is  worth  noting  :  "  If  you  would  place  the 
moral  merit  of  a  book  beyond  question,  ask  yourself  if 
you  would  like  to  have  its  author  for  your  spiritual 
director ;  do  not  think  that  this  precaution  is  exagger- 
ated or  uncalled  for,  for  between  the  author  of  a  book 
and  the  reader  there  are  relations  established  so  inti- 
mate that  they  beget  a  kind  of  intellectual  paternity, 
which  produces  deeper  and  more  durable  effects  than 
you  are  aware  of."  The  animus  of  the  Church  in  refer- 
ence to  the  discretion  that  ought  to  be  exercised  with 
regard  to  reading,  we  know  from  her  legislation  and  the 
particular  attention  she  has  given  to  this  matter.  The 
severest  penalties  she  decrees  against  those  who  read 
certain  books.  Even  the  sword  of  excommunication, 
which  she  herself  directs  with  great  and  sober  circum- 
spection, she  deems  not  too  severe  to  unsheathe  in  this 
matter.  Theologians  may  discuss  whether  and  how  far 
the  law  of  the  Index  of  prohibited  books  binds  in  dif- 
ferent countries;  one  thing  is  obvious,  that  the  great 
law  of  nature,  imprinted  by  Almighty  God  on  the 
tablets  of  the  heart  of  each  one,  forbids  us  to  read  books 
that  are  the  proximate  occasion  of  sin.  Not  even  the 
Sovereign  Pontiff  himself  can  give  a  dispensation  to 


READING.  175 

read  such  books.  Do  not  follow  Carlyle's  advice  of 
reading  that  which  will  give  you  most  pleasure,  for  this 
is  to  pander  to  the  inferior  appetite.  Read  not  for  the 
sake  of  frittering  away  the  time  ,  for  life  is  too  short  to 
be  thus  spent,  and  for  each  day,  you  can  if  you  will, 
find  a  noble  act  to  perform. 

"  Clara,  Clara  Vere  de  Yere, 

If  time  be  heavy  on  your  hands, 
Are  there  no  beggars  at  your  gate, 

Nor  any  poor  about  your  lands  ? 
Oh  !  teach  the  orphan  boy  to  read, 

Or  teach  the  orphan  girl  to  sew  ; 
Pray  Heaven  for  a  human  heart, 

And  let  the  foolish  yeoman  go." 

Read  for  the  sake  of  instruction,  and  with  instruc- 
tion is  always  united  intellectual  pleasure. 


s& 


Wi 


,*-**S::*: 


